Terpene synthases for biofuel production and methods thereof

ABSTRACT

The present invention relates to terpene synthases capable of degrading precursors into biofuel compounds, such as terpenoid compounds. In one instance, a transformed organism can include such terpene synthases, as well as vectors encoding such synthases. Methods of employing such synthases and organisms are also described herein.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/132,093, filed Mar. 12, 2015, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.

STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT INTEREST

This invention was made with Government support under contract no. DE-AC04-94AL85000 awarded by the U.S. Department of Energy to Sandia Corporation. The Government has certain rights in the invention.

REFERENCE TO A SEQUENCE LISTING APPENDIX

A sequence listing appendix including an ASCII formatted file accompanies this application. The appendix includes a file named “SD13315_ST25.txt,” created on Mar. 10, 2016 (size of 179 kilobytes), which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to terpene synthases capable of degrading precursors into biofuel compounds, such as terpenoid compounds. In one instance, a transformed organism can include such terpene synthases, as well as vectors encoding such synthases. Methods of employing such synthases and organisms are also described herein.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Terpenes are valuable bioproducts for use in various industries, including biofuel, pharmaceutical, healthcare, and food industry sectors. Extracting terpenes from plants can be costly with inconsistencies in yield and purity. There is a need for additional tools and processes to enable effective production of terpenes from different bioresources.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to terpene synthases selected to produce terpenoid compounds using a genetically modified organism (e.g., a genetically modified microbe). Such terpenoid compounds can have any useful purpose, such as for the production of high energy density fuels (e.g., aviation fuels) and chemical intermediates.

Accordingly, in one non-limiting instance, the present invention includes an isolated, genetically engineered organism (e.g., a microbial organism) including: an exogenous terpenoid precursor, an exogenous enzyme configured to synthesize a terpenoid precursor, or a nucleic acid encoding the exogenous enzyme; and an exogenous terpene synthase or a nucleic acid encoding the exogenous terpene synthase. In one embodiment, the exogenous terpene synthase is selected from the group consisting of a pinene synthase, a guaiene synthase, a pinene and guaiene synthase, a caryophyllene synthase, a chamigrene synthase, a chamigrene and pinene synthase, a gurjunene synthase, a gurjunene and pinene synthase, a gumunene synthase, a selinene synthase, and an isoledene synthase, or a bifunctional synthase of any of these.

In one non-limiting embodiment, the organism is a first microbe (e.g., a bacterium); and the exogenous terpenoid precursor, exogenous enzyme, and/or exogenous terpene synthase, as well as nucleic acids thereof encoding the polypeptide or complements thereof, are derived from a second microbe that is different than the first microbe. In one non-limiting embodiment, the first microbe is a bacterium, and the second microbe is a fungus.

In some embodiments, the organism is configured to effectively degrade the an exogenous terpenoid precursor, e.g., as compared to an organism lacking the exogenous terpenoid precursor, lacking the exogenous enzyme configured to synthesize a terpenoid precursor, and/or lacking the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous enzyme.

In some embodiments, the exogenous terpenoid precursor is selected from the group consisting of mevalonate, dimethylallyl pyrophosphate, isopentenyl pyrophosphate, farnesyl pyrophosphate, geranyl pyrophosphate, and geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate, or a salt thereof. In other embodiments, the precursor is a compound shown in FIG. 1, FIG. 21, FIG. 22, or FIG. 23.

In some embodiments, the organism is configured to produce one or more terpenoid compounds selected from the group consisting of a monoterpene, a sesquiterpene, and a diterpene. In other embodiments, the terpenoid compound is a compound shown in FIG. 3A-3E, FIG. 21, FIG. 22, or FIG. 23. In yet other embodiments, the organism is configured to produce two or more terpenoid compounds (e.g., a monoterpene and a sesquiterpene).

In some embodiments, the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous enzyme and/or the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous terpene synthase is provided as a plasmid vector.

In some embodiments, the exogenous enzyme is selected from the group consisting of acetyl-CoA acetyltransferase, HMG-CoA synthase, HMG-CoA reductase, mevalonate kinase, phosphomevalonate kinase, mevalonate diphosphate decarboxylase, isoprenyl diphosphate isomerase, and geranyl pyrophosphate synthase.

In other embodiments, the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous enzyme includes a nucleic acid sequence encoding the exogenous enzyme selected from the group consisting of acetyl-CoA acetyltransferase, HMG-CoA synthase, HMG-CoA reductase, mevalonate kinase, phosphomevalonate kinase, mevalonate diphosphate decarboxylase, isoprenyl diphosphate isomerase, and geranyl pyrophosphate synthase. In some embodiments, the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous enzyme includes a complement thereof (i.e., in which the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous enzyme includes a complement of a nucleic acid sequence encoding the exogenous enzyme selected from the group consisting of acetyl-CoA acetyltransferase, HMG-CoA synthase, HMG-CoA reductase, mevalonate kinase, phosphomevalonate kinase, mevalonate diphosphate decarboxylase, isoprenyl diphosphate isomerase, and geranyl pyrophosphate synthase).

In some embodiments, the exogenous terpene synthase is a chamigrene synthase; or the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous terpene synthase includes a nucleic acid sequence encoding the chamigrene synthase or a complement thereof. In other embodiments, the exogenous terpene synthase is a bifunctional terpene synthase (e.g., a synthase having enzymatic activity characterized by more than one type of synthase, such as a bifunctional monoterpene/sesquiterpene synthase, a bifunctional pinene/guaiene synthase, a bifunctional chamigrene/pinene synthase, a bifunctional gurjunene/pinene synthase

In some embodiments, the exogenous terpene synthase includes a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to any one of the following: SEQ ID NO: 10, in which X at each position of SEQ ID NO:10 is an amino acid present at a position in one of SEQ ID NOs:11-14 when optimally aligned with SEQ ID NO:10; SEQ ID NO:20, in which X at each position of SEQ ID NO:20 is an amino acid present at a position in one of SEQ ID NOs:21-25 when optimally aligned with SEQ ID NO:20; SEQ ID NO:30, in which X at each position of SEQ ID NO:30 is an amino acid present at a position in one of SEQ ID NOs:31-34 when optimally aligned with SEQ ID NO:30; SEQ ID NO:40, in which X at each position of SEQ ID NO:40 is an amino acid present at a position in one of SEQ ID NOs:41-46 when optimally aligned with SEQ ID NO:40; SEQ ID NO:50, in which X at each position of SEQ ID NO:50 is an amino acid present at a position in one of SEQ ID NOs:51-54 when optimally aligned with SEQ ID NO:50; SEQ ID NO:60, in which X at each position of SEQ ID NO:60 is an amino acid present at a position in one of SEQ ID NOs:61-64 when optimally aligned with SEQ ID NO:60; or a fragment of any of these polypeptide sequences.

In some embodiments, the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous terpene synthase includes a nucleic acid sequence encoding a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to any polypeptide sequence described herein, or a complement thereof.

In some embodiments, the exogenous terpene synthase includes a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to any one of SEQ ID NOs:11-14, 21-25, 31-34, 41-46, 51-54, and 61-64, or a fragment thereof. In other embodiments, the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous terpene synthase includes a nucleic acid sequence encoding a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to any one of SEQ ID NOs:11-14, 21-25, 31-34, 41-46, 51-54, and 61-64, or a fragment thereof. In yet other embodiments, the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous terpene synthase includes a complement of a nucleic acid sequence encoding a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to any one of SEQ ID NOs:11-14, 21-25, 31-34, 41-46, 51-54, and 61-64, or a fragment thereof.

In some embodiments, the exogenous terpene synthase includes a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to any one of SEQ ID NOs:23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 34, 41, 42, 44, 45, 54, 62, and 64. In other embodiments, the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous terpene synthase includes a nucleic acid sequence encoding a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to any one of SEQ ID NOs:23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 34, 41, 42, 44, 45, 54, 62, and 64. In yet other embodiments, the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous terpene synthase includes a complement of a nucleic acid sequence encoding a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to any one of SEQ ID NOs:23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 34, 41, 42, 44, 45, 54, 62, and 64.

In some embodiments, the exogenous terpene synthase includes a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to XXZZXXZX (SEQ ID NO:71) or a fragment thereof; where X is any amino acid; and where Z is selected from the group consisting of Asp, Glu, and His. In other embodiments, the exogenous terpene synthase includes a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to ZZXXZ (SEQ ID NO:72); where X is any amino acid (e.g., Ala, Ser, Thr, Val, Leu, Ile, Pro, Phe, Tyr, Asp, Glu, Gln, or Lys; Ala, Val, Leu, Ile, Pro, Phe, Tyr, Glu, or Gln; or Val, Leu, Ile, or Glu); and where Z is selected from the group consisting of Asp, Glu, and His. In yet other embodiments, the exogenous terpene synthase includes a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to XXZDXXZX (SEQ ID NO:73); where X is selected from the group consisting of Ala, Ser, Thr, Val, Leu, Ile, Phe, Tyr, Trp, Glu, Asn, Gln, His, and Pro; and where Z is selected from the group consisting of Asp and Glu. In other embodiments, the exogenous terpene synthase includes a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to ZDXXZ (SEQ ID NO:74); where X is selected from the group consisting of Ala, Val, Leu, Ile, Phe, Tyr, Glu, Gln, and Pro; and where Z is selected from the group consisting of Asp and Glu.

In some embodiments, the exogenous terpene synthase includes a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to XZZXXXSXXZ ZXX (SEQ ID NO:75) or a fragment thereof; where X is any amino acid (e.g., Gly, Ala, Ser, Thr, Val, Leu, Ile, Met, Phe, Tyr, Trp, Asp, Glu, Gln, Lys, Arg, or absent); and where Z is selected from the group consisting of Cys, Asp, Glu, Asn, Gln, Lys, Arg, and absent. In other embodiments, the exogenous terpene synthase includes a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to ZDXXXSXXZZ (SEQ ID NO:76) or a fragment thereof; where X is any amino acid (e.g., Ala, Val, Leu, Ile, Phe, Tyr, Trp, Glu, Gln, Lys, Arg, or absent); and where Z is selected from the group consisting of Cys, Asp, Glu, Asn, Gln, Lys, Arg, and absent.

In yet other embodiments, the exogenous terpene synthase includes a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to XZDXXXSXXZZXX (SEQ ID NO:77); where X is selected from the group consisting of Gly, Ala, Thr, Val, Leu, Ile, Phe, Tyr, Trp, Asp, Glu, Gln, Lys, Arg, and absent; and where Z is selected from the group consisting of Cys, Asp, Glu, Asn, Gln, Lys, and Arg. In other embodiments, the exogenous terpene synthase includes a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to ZDXXXSXXZZ (SEQ ID NO:78); where X is selected from the group consisting of Ala, Val, Leu, Ile, Phe, Tyr, Trp, Glu, Gln, Lys, Arg, and absent; and where Z is selected from the group consisting of Cys, Asp, Glu, Asn, Gln, Lys, and Arg.

In another aspect, the present invention relates to a method of treating a biomass. In some embodiments, the method includes exposing the biomass to one or more organisms (e.g., any described herein); and isolating one or more terpenoid compounds.

In some embodiments, the method includes (e.g., prior to the exposing step and/or prior to the isolating step) pre-treating the biomass with one or more acids and/or enzymes.

In some embodiments, the biomass includes an alga, an amino acid, a protein, and/or a carbohydrate.

In some embodiments, the one or more terpenoid compounds is selected from the group consisting of a monoterpene, a sesquiterpene, and a diterpene. In other embodiments, the terpenoid compound is a compound shown in FIG. 3A-3E, FIG. 21, FIG. 22, or FIG. 23.

In some embodiments, the exposing step includes a first organism configured to degrade a carbohydrate in the biomass and a second organism configured to degrade a protein in the biomass.

In any embodiment herein, the exogenous terpene synthase includes a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% (e.g., 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, or 99.9%) sequence identity to any polypeptide sequence described herein, or a fragment thereof (e.g., a fragment including 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 2, 23, 24, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, or more amino acids).

In any embodiment herein, the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous terpene synthase includes a nucleic acid sequence encoding a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% (e.g., 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, or 99.9%) sequence identity to any polypeptide sequence described herein, or a complement thereof.

In any embodiment herein, the exogenous terpene synthase is a polypeptide sequence corresponding to an enzyme identified in FIG. 2A-2C, FIG. 4A-4B, FIG. 5A-5B, FIG. 6A-6B, FIG. 7A-7B, FIG. 8A-8B, FIG. 9A-9B, or FIG. 13. In some embodiments, the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous enzyme or a complement thereof is a nucleic acid sequence encoding any polypeptide sequence described herein (e.g., as in FIG. 2, FIG. 4A-4B, FIG. 5A-5B, FIG. 6A-6B, FIG. 7A-7B, FIG. 8A-8B, FIG. 9A-9B, or FIG. 13).

In any embodiment herein, the exogenous terpene synthase is a polypeptide sequence including any sequence described herein, e.g., in FIG. 2A-2C, FIG. 4A-4B, FIG. 5A-5B, FIG. 6A-6B, FIG. 7A-7B, FIG. 8A-8B, FIG. 9A-9B, FIG. 10A-10B, FIG. 11A-11B, FIG. 12A.

In any embodiment herein, the terpenoid compound is a compound shown in FIG. 3A-3E, FIG. 14, FIG. 15A-15B, FIG. 16A-16C, FIG. 17A-17D, FIG. 18, FIG. 19A-19B, FIG. 20B, FIG. 21, FIG. 22, FIG. 23, FIG. 28, FIG. 29, FIG. 30, FIG. 31, FIG. 32, or FIG. 33.

In any embodiment herein, the nucleic encoding the exogenous enzyme and/or the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous terpene synthase is provided as a plasmid vector (e.g., as in FIG. 24, FIG. 34A, or FIG. 35A). Additional details follow.

Definitions

As used herein, the term “about” means+/−10% of any recited value. As used herein, this term modifies any recited value, range of values, or endpoints of one or more ranges.

The terms “polynucleotide” and “nucleic acid,” used interchangeably herein, refer to a polymeric form of nucleotides of any length, either ribonucleotides or deoxyribonucleotides. Thus, this term includes, but is not limited to, single-stranded (e.g., sense or antisense), double-stranded, or multi-stranded ribonucleic acids (RNAs), deoxyribonucleic acids (DNAs), threose nucleic acids (TNAs), glycol nucleic acids (GNAs), peptide nucleic acids (PNAs), locked nucleic acids (LNAs), or hybrids thereof, genomic DNA, cDNA, DNA-RNA hybrids, or a polymer comprising purine and pyrimidine bases or other natural, chemically or biochemically modified, non-natural, or derivatized nucleotide bases. Polynucleotides can have any useful two-dimensional or three-dimensional structure or motif, such as regions including one or more duplex, triplex, quadruplex, hairpin, and/or pseudoknot structures or motifs.

The term “modified,” as used in reference to nucleic acids, means a nucleic acid sequence including one or more modifications to the nucleobase, nucleoside, nucleotide, phosphate group, sugar group, and/or internucleoside linkage (e.g., phosphodiester backbone, linking phosphate, or a phosphodiester linkage).

The term “modified,” as used in reference to amino acids, means an amino acid including one or more modifications, such as a post-translation modification (e.g., acetylation, methylation, phosphorylation, ubiquitination, sumoylation, ribosylation, glycosylation, acylation, or isomerization), or including a non-natural amino acid.

The term “modified,” as used in reference to a protein, means a polypeptide sequence including one or more amino acid substitution, as compared to the reference sequence for the protein.

“Complementarity” or “complementary” or “complement” refers to the ability of a nucleic acid to form hydrogen bond(s) with another nucleic acid sequence by either traditional Watson-Crick or other non-traditional types, e.g., form Watson-Crick base pairs and/or G/U base pairs, “anneal”, or “hybridize,” to another nucleic acid in a sequence-specific, antiparallel, manner (i.e., a nucleic acid specifically binds to a complementary nucleic acid) under the appropriate in vitro and/or in vivo conditions of temperature and solution ionic strength. As is known in the art, standard Watson-Crick base-pairing includes: adenine (A) pairing with thymidine (T), adenine (A) pairing with uracil (U), and guanine (G) pairing with cytosine (C). In addition, it is also known in the art that for hybridization between two RNA molecules (e.g., dsRNA), guanine (G) base pairs with uracil (U). A percent complementarity indicates the percentage of residues in a nucleic acid molecule which can form hydrogen bonds (e.g., Watson-Crick base pairing) with a second nucleic acid sequence (e.g., 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 out of 10 being 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, and 100% complementary). “Perfectly complementary” means that all the contiguous residues of a nucleic acid sequence will hydrogen bond with the same number of contiguous residues in a second nucleic acid sequence. “Substantially complementary” or “sufficient complementarity” as used herein refers to a degree of complementarity that is at least 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 97%, 98%, 99%, or 100% over a region of 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, or more nucleotides, or refers to two nucleic acids that hybridize under stringent conditions.

As used herein, “stringent conditions” for hybridization refer to conditions under which a nucleic acid having complementarity to a target sequence predominantly hybridizes with the target sequence, and substantially does not hybridize to non-target sequences. Stringent conditions are generally sequence-dependent, and vary depending on a number of factors. In general, the longer the sequence, the higher the temperature at which the sequence specifically hybridizes to its target sequence. Non-limiting examples of stringent conditions are described in detail in Tijssen (1993), Laboratory Techniques In Biochemistry And Molecular Biology-Hybridization With Nucleic Acid Probes Part 1, Second Chapter “Overview of principles of hybridization and the strategy of nucleic acid probe assay”, Elsevier, N.Y.

“Hybridization” refers to a reaction in which one or more polynucleotides react to form a complex that is stabilized via hydrogen bonding between the bases of the nucleotide residues. The hydrogen bonding may occur by Watson Crick base pairing, Hoogstein binding, or in any other sequence specific manner. The complex may comprise two strands forming a duplex structure, three or more strands forming a multi stranded complex, a single self-hybridizing strand, or any combination of these. A hybridization reaction may constitute a step in a more extensive process, such as the initiation of PCR, or the cleavage of a polynucleotide by an enzyme. A sequence capable of hybridizing with a given sequence is referred to as the “complement” of the given sequence. Hybridization and washing conditions are well known and exemplified in Sambrook J, Fritsch E F, and Maniatis T, “Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual,” Second Edition, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor (1989), particularly Chapter 11 and Table 11.1 therein; and Sambrook J and Russell W, “Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual,” Third Edition, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor (2001). The conditions of temperature and ionic strength determine the “stringency” of the hybridization.

Hybridization requires that the two nucleic acids contain complementary sequences, although mismatches between bases are possible. The conditions appropriate for hybridization between two nucleic acids depend on the length of the nucleic acids and the degree of complementation, variables well known in the art. The greater the degree of complementation between two nucleotide sequences, the greater the value of the melting temperature (Tm) for hybrids of nucleic acids having those sequences. For hybridizations between nucleic acids with short stretches of complementarity (e.g., complementarity over 35 or less, 30 or less, 25 or less, 22 or less, 20 or less, or 18 or less nucleotides) the position of mismatches becomes important (see Sambrook et al., supra, 11.7-11.8). Typically, the length for a hybridizable nucleic acid is at least about 10 nucleotides. Illustrative minimum lengths for a hybridizable nucleic acid are: at least about 15 nucleotides; at least about 20 nucleotides; at least about 22 nucleotides; at least about 25 nucleotides; and at least about 30 nucleotides). Furthermore, the skilled artisan will recognize that the temperature and wash solution salt concentration may be adjusted as necessary according to factors such as length of the region of complementation and the degree of complementation.

It is understood in the art that the sequence of polynucleotide need not be 100% complementary to that of its target nucleic acid to be specifically hybridizable or hybridizable. Moreover, a polynucleotide may hybridize over one or more segments such that intervening or adjacent segments are not involved in the hybridization event (e.g., a loop structure or hairpin structure). A polynucleotide can comprise at least 70%, at least 80%, at least 90%, at least 95%, at least 99%, or 100% sequence complementarity to a target region within the target nucleic acid sequence to which they are targeted. For example, an antisense nucleic acid in which 18 of 20 nucleotides of the antisense compound are complementary to a target region, and would therefore specifically hybridize, would represent 90 percent complementarity. In this example, the remaining noncomplementary nucleotides may be clustered or interspersed with complementary nucleotides and need not be contiguous to each other or to complementary nucleotides. Percent complementarity between particular stretches of nucleic acid sequences within nucleic acids can be determined routinely using BLAST programs (basic local alignment search tools) and PowerBLAST programs known in the art (Altschul S F et al., J. Mol. Biol. 1990; 215:403-10; Zhang J et al., Genome Res. 1997; 7:649-56) or by using the Gap program (Wisconsin Sequence Analysis Package, Version 8 for Unix, Genetics Computer Group, University Research Park, Madison Wis.), using default settings, which uses the algorithm of Smith T F et al., Adv. Appl. Math. 1981; 2(4):482-9).

By “protein,” “peptide,” or “polypeptide,” as used interchangeably, is meant any chain of more than two amino acids, regardless of post-translational modification (e.g., glycosylation or phosphorylation), constituting all or part of a naturally occurring polypeptide or peptide, or constituting a non-naturally occurring polypeptide or peptide, which can include coded amino acids, non-coded amino acids, modified amino acids (e.g., chemically and/or biologically modified amino acids), and/or modified backbones.

The term “fragment” is meant a portion of a nucleic acid or a polypeptide that is at least one nucleotide or one amino acid shorter than the reference sequence. This portion contains, preferably, at least about 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, or 90% of the entire length of the reference nucleic acid molecule or polypeptide. A fragment may contain 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1250, 1500, 1750, 1800 or more nucleotides; or 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 550, 600, 640 amino acids or more. In another example, any polypeptide fragment can include a stretch of at least about 5 (e.g., about 10, about 20, about 30, about 40, about 50, or about 100) amino acids that are at least about 40% (e.g., about 50%, about 60%, about 70%, about 80%, about 90%, about 95%, about 87%, about 98%, about 99%, or about 100%) identical to any of the sequences described herein can be utilized in accordance with the invention. In certain embodiments, a polypeptide to be utilized in accordance with the invention includes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or more mutations (e.g., one or more conservative amino acid substitutions, as described herein). In yet another example, any nucleic acid fragment can include a stretch of at least about 5 (e.g., about 7, about 8, about 10, about 12, about 14, about 18, about 20, about 24, about 28, about 30, or more) nucleotides that are at least about 40% (about 50%, about 60%, about 70%, about 80%, about 90%, about 95%, about 87%, about 98%, about 99%, or about 100%) identical to any of the sequences described herein can be utilized in accordance with the invention.

The term “conservative amino acid substitution” refers to the interchangeability in proteins of amino acid residues having similar side chains (e.g., of similar size, charge, and/or polarity). For example, a group of amino acids having aliphatic side chains consists of glycine (Gly, G), alanine (Ala, A), valine (Val, V), leucine (Leu, L), and isoleucine (Ile, I); a group of amino acids having aliphatic-hydroxyl side chains consists of serine (Ser, S) and threonine (Thr, T); a group of amino acids having amide containing side chains consisting of asparagine (Asn, N) and glutamine (Gln, Q); a group of amino acids having aromatic side chains consists of phenylalanine (Phe, F), tyrosine (Tyr, Y), and tryptophan (Trp, W); a group of amino acids having basic side chains consists of lysine (Lys, K), arginine (Arg, R), and histidine (His, H); a group of amino acids having acidic side chains consists of glutamic acid (Glu, E) and aspartic acid (Asp, D); and a group of amino acids having sulfur containing side chains consists of cysteine (Cys, C) and methionine (Met, M). Exemplary conservative amino acid substitution groups are valine-leucine-isoleucine, phenylalanine-tyrosine, lysine-arginine, alanine-valine, glycine-serine, glutamate-aspartate, and asparagine-glutamine.

As used herein, when a polypeptide or nucleic acid sequence is referred to as having “at least X % sequence identity” to a reference sequence, it is meant that at least X percent of the amino acids or nucleotides in the polypeptide or nucleic acid are identical to those of the reference sequence when the sequences are optimally aligned. An optimal alignment of sequences can be determined in various ways that are within the skill in the art, for instance, the Smith Waterman alignment algorithm (Smith T F et al., J. Mol. Biol. 1981; 147:195-7) and BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool; Altschul S F et al., J. Mol. Biol. 1990; 215:403-10). These and other alignment algorithms are accessible using publicly available computer software such as “Best Fit” (Smith T F et al., Adv. Appl. Math. 1981; 2(4):482-9) as incorporated into GeneMatcher Plus™ (Schwarz and Dayhof, “Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure,” ed. Dayhoff, M. O., pp. 353-358, 1979), BLAST, BLAST-2, BLAST-P, BLAST-N, BLAST-X, WU-BLAST-2, ALIGN, ALIGN-2, CLUSTAL, T-COFFEE, MUSCLE, MAFFT, or Megalign (DNASTAR). In addition, those skilled in the art can determine appropriate parameters for measuring alignment, including any algorithms needed to achieve optimal alignment over the length of the sequences being compared. In general, for polypeptides, the length of comparison sequences can be at least five amino acids, preferably 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, or more amino acids, up to the entire length of the polypeptide. For nucleic acids, the length of comparison sequences can generally be at least 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000, 2100, or more nucleotides, up to the entire length of the nucleic acid molecule. It is understood that for the purposes of determining sequence identity when comparing a DNA sequence to an RNA sequence, a thymine nucleotide is equivalent to a uracil nucleotide.

By “substantial identity” or “substantially identical” is meant a polypeptide or nucleic acid sequence that has the same polypeptide or nucleic acid sequence, respectively, as a reference sequence, or has a specified percentage of amino acid residues or nucleotides, respectively, that are the same at the corresponding location within a reference sequence when the two sequences are optimally aligned. For example, an amino acid sequence that is “substantially identical” to a reference sequence has at least about 50%, 60%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, or 100% sequence identity to the reference amino acid sequence. For polypeptides, the length of comparison sequences will generally be at least 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 50, 75, 90, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, or 350 contiguous amino acids (e.g., a full-length sequence). For nucleic acids, the length of comparison sequences will generally be at least 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, or 25 contiguous nucleotides (e.g., the full-length nucleotide sequence). Sequence identity may be measured using sequence analysis software on the default setting (e.g., Sequence Analysis Software Package of the Genetics Computer Group, University of Wisconsin Biotechnology Center, 1710 University Avenue, Madison, Wis., 53705). Such software may match similar sequences by assigning degrees of homology to various substitutions, deletions, and other modifications.

A “vector” or “expression vector” is a replicon, such as plasmid, phage, virus, or cosmid, to which another nucleic acid segment, i.e., an “insert”, may be attached so as to bring about the replication of the attached segment in a cell.

An “expression cassette” comprises a nucleic acid coding sequence operably linked, as defined herein, to a promoter sequence, as defined herein.

“Operably linked” or “operatively linked” or “operatively associated with,” as used interchangeably, refers to a juxtaposition wherein the components so described are in a relationship permitting them to function in their intended manner. For instance, a promoter is operably linked to a coding sequence if the promoter affects its transcription or expression. A nucleic acid molecule is operatively linked or operably linked to, or operably associated with, an expression control sequence when the expression control sequence controls and regulates the transcription and translation of nucleic acid sequence. The term “operatively linked” includes having an appropriate start signal (e.g., ATG) in front of the nucleic acid sequence to be expressed and maintaining the correct reading frame to permit expression of the nucleic acid sequence under the control of the expression control sequence and production of the desired product encoded by the nucleic acid sequence. If a gene that one desires to insert into a recombinant DNA molecule does not contain an appropriate start signal, such a start signal can be inserted in front of the gene.

As used herein, the terms “top,” “bottom,” “upper,” “lower,” “above,” and “below” are used to provide a relative relationship between structures. The use of these terms does not indicate or require that a particular structure must be located at a particular location in the apparatus.

Other features and advantages of the invention will be apparent from the following description and the claims.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 shows a schematic of a biosynthetic mechanism of geranyl pyrophosphate (GPP), farnesyl pyrophosphate (FPP), geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate (GGPP), and corresponding terpene compounds (adapted from Oldfield E et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2012; 51(5):1124-37).

FIG. 2A-2C shows phylogenetic tree analysis of endophyte terpene synthases (TPSs). Provided are (A) a comparison of TPSs from four endophytic fungi in the genus Hypoxylon or Daldinia, in which a total of 26 TPSs from these fungi were grouped into five distinct clusters; (B) a comparison of endophyte and plant TPSs; and (C) a comparison of endophyte and other fungal TPSs.

FIG. 3A-3E shows chemical structures of terpenoid compounds with terpene profiles of TPSs in (A) cluster 2, (B) cluster 3, (C) cluster 4, (D) cluster 5, and (E) non-clustered TPSs. The number and letter below each structure refers to the compounds in Tables 3-12 herein.

FIG. 4A-4B shows polypeptide sequences for TPSs in cluster 1. Provided are (A) sequences for cluster 1 (SEQ ID NOs:11-14) and (B) a comparison of sequences for cluster 1 with a consensus sequence (SEQ ID NO:10). Structural motifs are underlined, and conserved amino acids are in gray highlight. At each position, X in SEQ ID NO:10 can be an amino acid present at the aligned position in one of SEQ ID NOs:11-14.

FIGS. 5A, 5B-1, and 5B-2 shows polypeptide sequences for TPSs in cluster 2. Provided are (A) sequences for cluster 2 (SEQ ID NOs:21-25) and (B-1 and B-2) a comparison of sequences for cluster 2 with a consensus sequence (SEQ ID NO:20), in which FIG. 5B-1 and FIG. 5B-2 are taken together and referred to as FIG. 5B herein. Structural motifs are underlined, and conserved amino acids are in gray highlight. At each position, X in SEQ ID NO:20 can be an amino acid present at the aligned position in one of SEQ ID NOs:21-25.

FIG. 6A-6B shows polypeptide sequences for TPSs in cluster 3. Provided are (A) sequences for cluster 3 (SEQ ID NOs:31-34) and (B) a comparison of sequences for cluster 2 with a consensus sequence (SEQ ID NO:30). Structural motifs are underlined, and conserved amino acids are in gray highlight. At each position, X in SEQ ID NO:30 can be an amino acid present at the aligned position in one of SEQ ID NOs:31-34.

FIG. 7A-7B shows polypeptide sequences for TPSs in cluster 4. Provided are (A) sequences for cluster 4 (SEQ ID NOs:41-46) and (B) a comparison of sequences for cluster 2 with a consensus sequence (SEQ ID NO:40). Structural motifs are underlined, and conserved amino acids are in gray highlight. At each position, X in SEQ ID NO:40 can be an amino acid present at the aligned position in one of SEQ ID NOs:41-46.

FIGS. 8A, 8B-1, and 8B-2 shows polypeptide sequences for TPSs in cluster 5. Provided are (A) sequences for cluster 5 (SEQ ID NOs:51-54) and (B-1 and B-2) a comparison of sequences for cluster 2 with a consensus sequence (SEQ ID NO:50), in which FIG. 8B-1 and FIG. 8B-2 are taken together and referred to as FIG. 8B herein. Structural motifs are underlined, and conserved amino acids are in gray highlight. At each position, X in SEQ ID NO:50 can be an amino acid present at the aligned position in one of SEQ ID NOs:51-54.

FIG. 9A-9B shows polypeptide sequences for non-clustered TPSs. Provided are (A) non-clustered sequences (SEQ ID NOs:61-64) and (B) a comparison of sequences for cluster 2 with a consensus sequence (SEQ ID NO:60). Structural motifs are underlined, and conserved amino acids are in gray highlight. At each position, X in SEQ ID NO:60 can be an amino acid present at the aligned position in one of SEQ ID NOs:61-64.

FIG. 10A-10B shows consensus sequences for TPSs. Provided are (A) consensus sequence 1A (SEQ ID NO:71) and shorter consensus sequence 1B (SEQ ID NO:72); and (B) consensus sequence 1C (SEQ ID NO:73) and shorter consensus sequence 1D (SEQ ID NO:74).

FIG. 11A-11B shows consensus sequences for TPSs. Provided are (A) consensus sequence 2A (SEQ ID NO:75) and shorter consensus sequence 2B (SEQ ID NO:76); and (B) consensus sequence 2C (SEQ ID NO:77) and shorter consensus sequence 2D (SEQ ID NO:78).

FIG. 12A-12B shows (A) a protein sequence alignment of the predicted TPSs from sequenced four endophytes, which active TPSs are highlighted in gray in the first column; and (B) identified major products for the TPSs.

FIG. 13 shows a table, which provides the nomenclature of active terpene synthases in each cluster, the enzyme function, and the JGI Protein ID number.

FIG. 14 shows the most abundant terpene compounds from each cluster and TPS.

FIG. 15A-15B shows gas chromatograph terpene profiles of TPSs in the cluster 2, including (A) DalEC12-17536 (a Pinene and Guaiene Synthase or PGS) and (B) DalEC38-200002 (a PGS).

FIG. 16A-16C shows gas chromatograph terpene profiles of TPSs in the cluster 3, including (A) HypCI4A-6706 (a Caryophyllene Synthase or CS), (B) DalEC38-373976 (a CS), and (C) HypCO27-397991 (a CS).

FIG. 17A-17D shows gas chromatograph terpene profiles of TPS in the cluster 4, including (A) DalEC38-328361 (a Chamigrene and Pinene Synthase or CPS), (B) HypCI4A-322581 (CPS), (C) DalEC38-80361 (Gurjunene and Pinene Synthase or GPS), and (D) HypCO27-392541 (CPS).

FIG. 18 shows a gas chromatograph terpene profile of a TPS in the cluster 5, DalEC12-315006 (a Gurnunene Synthase or GS).

FIG. 19A-19B shows gas chromatograph terpene profiles of TPSs in a non-clustered group, including (A) DalEC12-24646 (a Selinene Synthase or SS) and (B) DalEC12-70183 (an IsoLedene Synthase or ILS).

FIG. 20A-20B shows gas chromatograph compound profiles of (A) a control strain lacking TPS and (B) terpene standards.

FIG. 21 shows a non-limiting schematic of a biosynthetic mechanism of monoterpenes: α-, and β-pinene, α-limonene, 2-carene, β-ocimene, and τ-terpinene (adapted from Dewick P M, Nat. Prod. Rep. 2002; 19(2):181-222; and Davis E M et al., Topics Curr. Chem. 2000; 209:53-95). The biosynthesis of pinene can be rationalized by postulating that GPP ionizes to a stable allylic cation, followed by collapse to linalyl diphosphate (LPP). The reionization of the LPP cisoid conformer followed by intramolecular electrophilic addition generates the transient α-terpinyl cation. Alternatively, an additional electrophilic attack on the newly formed cyclohexenoid double bond of α-terpinyl cation generates the pinane skeleton, which deprotonated by terpene cyclase II to form both α- and β-pinene (see, e.g., Gambliel H et al., J. Biol. Chem. 1984; 259(2):740-8).

FIG. 22 shows a non-limiting schematic of a biosynthetic mechanism of sesquiterpenes: α-, and β-caryophyllene, humulen, α-selinene, α-guaiene, and τ-gurjunene (adapted from Dewick P M, Nat. Prod. Rep. 2002; 19(2):181-222; and Davis E M et al., Topics Curr. Chem. 2000; 209:53-95). Generally, FPP is ionized to generate an allylic cation, and then through a 11.1 closure to form humulyl cation and a subsequent deprotonation to yield α-caryophyllene, or through a 11.1 closure to form humulyl cation, another 2.10 closure to generate caryophyllyl cation and further deprotonated to form humulen-(v1) and β-caryophyllene. Also, FPP can be ionized and through a subsequent 10.1 closure and deprotonation, form germacrene A, which can be an intermediate for further intramolecular electrophilic attack, hydride shift, and deprotonation, yield α-selinene, α-guaiene, and τ-gurjunene.

FIG. 23 shows a non-limiting schematic of a biosynthetic mechanism of sesquiterpenes: 3-chamigrene and thujopsene (see, e.g., Davis E M et al., Topics Curr. Chem. 2000; 209:53-95; Wu S et al., “Surrogate splicing for functional analysis of sesquiterpene synthase genes,” Plant Physiol. 2005; 138(3):1322-33). Chamigrene biosynthesis could begin with the ionization and subsequent allylic rearrangement of the diphosphate moiety of FPP, allowing for the formation of nerodidyl diphosphate (NPP, cisoid conformation). Reionization of the ciscoid conformation of NPP and subsequent intramolecular electrophilic attack would form a bisabolyl cation, which followed by a secondary intramolecular electrophilic attack and 1,4-hydride shift, would create a cuprenyl cation. A subsequent methylene migration would yield the chamigrenyl cation which could undergo a direct proton abstraction to form β-chamigrene (see, e.g., Lin P P et al., “Isobutanol production at elevated temperatures in thermophilic Geobacillus thermoglucosidasius,” Metab. Eng. 2014; 24:1-8 (erratum in Metab. Eng. 2014; 24:192)).

FIG. 24 shows an exemplary approach for optimization of terpene production through different pathway enzyme regulation strategies. Provided are schematics of Construct 1: GPPS and terpene synthase (TS) were expressed in separate plasmids under strong promoters, mevalonate pathway enzymes were expressed under medium strength promoter LacUV5 and strong promoter Ptrc, respectively, to optimize flux to GGP; Construct 2: mevalonate pathway enzymes and GPPS_(Ag) were expressed under medium strength promoter LacUV5 and strong promoter Ptrc, respectively, to optimize flux to GGP, TPS was regulated by a strong promoter T7; and Construct 3: GPPS_(Ag) and TPS were tandem expressed under a strong promoter Ptrc, mevalonate pathway enzymes were expressed under medium strength promoter LacUV5 and strong promoter Ptrc, respectively, to optimize flux to GGP.

FIG. 25A-25B shows (A) terpene concentrations produced from different constructs in FIG. 24; and (B) in vivo metabolite mevalonate concentrations from different constructs in FIG. 24.

FIG. 26A-26C shows optimization of the terpene formation from construct 1. Provided are graphs showing (A) induction with different concentrations of isopropyl-β-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG); (B) terpene production in construct 1 induced with 0.25 mM IPTG under variable amino acid concentrations; and (C) terpene formation in construct 1 induced with 0.25 mM IPTG under variable temperature.

FIG. 27A-27B shows bioconversion of algal protein into terpenes using an engineered E. coli strain YH40-chamigrene synthase. Provided are graphs showing (A) terpene concentration produced from degrading an algal hydrolysate and (B) substrate consumption and terpene yield of the engineered E. coli strain YH40-chamigrene synthase (YH40-CS).

FIG. 28 shows a gas chromatograph terpene profile of YH40-HypCI4A-322581 upon degrading an amino acid mixture, in which peaks are identified in Table 13.

FIG. 29 shows a gas chromatograph terpene profile of YH40-DalEC12-315006 upon degrading an amino acid mixture, in which peaks are identified in Table 14.

FIG. 30 shows a gas chromatograph terpene profile of YH40-DalEC12-70183 upon degrading an amino acid mixture, in which peaks are identified in Table 15.

FIG. 31 shows a gas chromatograph terpene profile of YH40-HypEC38-80361 upon degrading an amino acid mixture, in which peaks are identified in Table 16.

FIG. 32 shows a gas chromatograph terpene profile of YH40-DalEC12-24646 upon degrading an amino acid mixture, in which peaks are identified in Table 17.

FIG. 33 shows a gas chromatograph terpene profile of YH40-HypCI4A-6706 upon degrading an amino acid mixture, in which peaks are identified in Table 18.

FIG. 34A-34D shows comprehensive conversion of algal carbohydrates and proteins into caryophyllene and other terpenes using a synthetic microbial consortium on algal hydrolysate of Nannochloropsis sp. Provided are (A) a caryophyllene biosynthesis pathway construct; (B) a graph showing concentration of caryophyllene and other terpenes produced by using this construct; (C) algal carbohydrate and protein consumption of the microbial consortia produced by using this construct; and (D) caryophyllene and other terpene yields based on the substrate consumption using this construct.

FIG. 35A-35C shows comprehensive conversion of algal carbohydrate and protein into chamigrene and other terpenes using a synthetic microbial consortium on algal hydrolysate of benthic polyculture biomass. Provided are (A) a chamigrene biosynthesis pathway construct; (B) a graph showing concentration of chamigrene and other terpenes produced by using this construct; and (C) algal carbohydrate and protein consumption and total terpene yields based on the substrate consumption by using this construct.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to terpene synthases capable of degrading precursors into biofuel compounds, such as terpenoid compounds. Such synthases can be provided by an isolated, genetically engineered organism. In one instance, the organism includes an exogenous terpene synthase or a nucleic acid encoding the exogenous terpene synthase. As seen in FIG. 1, such synthases can assist in the production of monoterpenes, sesquiterpenes, and diterpenes by processing precursors. Exemplary terpenoid compounds include a monoterpene (e.g., a C₁₀ terpenoid compound or any such as camphene, carene, citral, citronellal, citronellol, halomon, limonene, linalool, myrcene, ocimene, phellandrene, pinene, sabinene, terpinene, terpinolene, and thujene), a sesquiterpene (e.g., a C₁₅ compound or any such as cadinene, caryophyllene, copaene, dictyophorine A, dictyophorine B, farnesene, farnesol, guaiazulene, humulene, longifolene, patchoulol, vetivazulene, and zingiberene), a diterpene (e.g., a C₂₀ compound or any such as abietane, cembrene A, labdane, phytane, sclarene, stemarene, stemodene, taxadiene, or taxane), or a triterpene (e.g., a C₃₀ compound or any such as hopane, lanostane, malabaricane, oleanane, polypodatetraene, or squalene). Other exemplary terpenoid compounds are provided in FIG. 3A-3E.

The terpene synthase can be identified in any useful manner. In one instance, naturally occurring terpene synthases can be screened to identify those that increase production of one or more terpenoid compounds (e.g., terpenoid compounds obtained by degrading a biomass, such as in the presence of one or more synthases). Exemplary synthases include those fungal terpene synthases (e.g., endophytic fungal terpene synthases, such as those for Hypocreales or Xylariales, including Hypoxylon and Daldinia). Exemplary terpene synthases are provided in FIG. 2A-2C, such as clusters described herein; and in FIG. 13, as identified by JGI Protein ID numbers, which can be accessed at genome.jgi.doe.gov/.

Furthermore, polypeptide sequences of terpene synthase are provided for cluster 1 (SEQ ID NOs:10-14 in FIG. 4A-4B), cluster 2 (SEQ ID NOs:20-25 in FIG. 5A-5B), cluster 3 (SEQ ID NOs:30-34 in FIG. 6A-6B), cluster 4 (SEQ ID NOs:40-46 in FIG. 7A-7B), cluster 5 (SEQ ID NOs:50-54 in FIG. 8A-8B), and non-clustered (SEQ ID NOs:60-64 in FIG. 9A-9B). The terpene synthases herein can include a consensus sequence, such as SEQ ID NO:71-74 (in FIG. 10A-10B), SEQ ID NO:75-78 (in FIG. 11A-11B), as well as those motifs provided in FIG. 12A.

The organism can also include proteins in one or more pathways that facilitate production of a terpenoid precursor. Thus, in some instances, the organism includes an exogenous terpenoid precursor, an exogenous enzyme configured to synthesize a terpenoid precursor, or a nucleic acid encoding the exogenous enzyme. The exogenous enzyme can include one or more in a mevalonate pathway and/or the 2-C-methyl-D-erythritol 4-phosphate/1-deoxy-D-xylulose 5-phosphate pathway (MEP/DOXP pathway). Exemplary exogenous enzymes include a acetoacetyl-CoA thiolase, HMG-CoA synthase, HMG-CoA reductase, mevalonate-5-kinase, mevalonate-3-kinase, mevalonate-3-phosphate-5-kinase, phosphomevalonate kinase, mevalonate-5-pyrophosphate decarboxylase, isopentenyl pyrophosphate isomerase, DOXP synthase, 4-diphosphocytidyl-2-C-methyl-D-erythritol synthase, 4-diphosphocytidyl-2-C-methyl-D-erythritol kinase, 2-C-methyl-D-erythritol 2,4-cyclodiphosphate synthase, HMB-PP synthase, and HMB-PP reductase.

The present invention also relates to methods of treating a biomass by exposing the biomass to one or more terpene synthases (e.g., any described herein), as well as one or more organisms configured to provide or produce such synthases. The methods can include other useful steps, including optionally pre-treating the biomass (e.g., thereby facilitating access to carbohydrates and/or proteins within the biomass) and/or isolating one or more terpenoid compounds. More than one type of terpene synthase, as well as more than one type of organism each independently including a synthase, can be employed within the method.

Biomass

Any useful biomass can be employed. Exemplary biomass include distillers grains or co-products (e.g., wet distillers grains (WDGs), dried distillers grains (DDGs), dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS), fatty acids from oil hydrolysis, lipids from evaporation of thin stillage, syrup, distillers grains, distillers grains with or without solubles, solids from a mash before fermentation, solids from a whole stillage after fermentation, biodiesel, and acyl glycerides), oilseed meals (e.g., soybean meal or canola meal), feeds (e.g., alfalfa meal, cottonseed meal, DDGS, rice bran, or wheat bran), yeast (e.g., extracts), algae (e.g., Nannochloropsis, wastewater algae, or any described herein), cereal by-products (e.g., whey), etc.

The algae can include any useful organism, such as chlorophyta, diatoms, plankton, protists, and/or cyanobacteria. For instance, algae can include one or more photosynthetic organisms, including one or more microalgae, macroalgae, diatoms, green algae, yellow algae, phytoplankton, haptophytes, and/or cyanobacteria. Exemplary algae include Achnanthes, Ankistrodesmus (e.g., A. falcatus or A. fusiformis), Aphanizomenon, Arthrospira (e.g., A. maxima), Bacillariophyceae, Botryococcus (e.g., B. braunii), Chlamydocapsa (e.g., C. bacillus), Chlamydomonas (e.g., C. perigranulata or C. reinhardtii), Chlorella (e.g., C. marina, C. vulgaris, C. sorokiniana, C. minutissima, or C. pyrenoidosa), Chlorococcum (e.g., C. infusionum, C. littorale, or C. humicola), Chlorogloeopsis (e.g., C. fritschii), Chlorophyceae, Chrysophyceae, Cyanophyceae, Dunaliella (e.g., D. bardawil, D. bioculata, D. primolecta, D. tertiolecta, or D. salina), Ellipsoidion, Isochrysis, Kirchneriella (e.g., K. lunaris), Nannochloropsis (e.g., N. salina or N. oculata), Neochloris (e.g., N. oleoabundans), Nitzschia, Phaeodactylum (e.g., P. tricornutum), Porphyridium (e.g., P. purpureum), Pyrmnesium (e.g., P. parvum), Scenedesmus (e.g., S. obliquus, S. quadricauda, or S. dimorphus), Schizochytrium, Skeletonema (e.g., S. costatum), Spirogyra, Spirulina (e.g., S. maxima or S. platensis), Synechococcus (e.g., S. elongatus), and/or Tetraselmis (e.g., T. maculata or T. suecica). Additional algae species and organisms are described in Schneider R C S et al., “Potential production of biofuel from microalgae biomass produced in wastewater,” in Biodiesel—Feedstocks, Production and Applications, Prof. Zhen Fang (ed.), InTech, 2012, 22 pp., which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.

Pre-Treatment of the Biomass

Pre-treatment can be used to convert constituents within the biomass into various biocomponents (e.g., proteins, carbohydrates, fatty acids, and/or lipids). Such biocomponents can be pre-treated to obtain more solubilized or hydrolyzed constituents, such as amino acids or sugars (e.g., glucose). For instance, carbohydrates within the biomass can be pre-treated and, thereby, be converted into a sugar and/or an alcohol, such as glucose, fucose, galactose, xylose, mannose, mannitol, ethanol, butanol, and/or pentanol. In another instance, proteins within the biomass can be treated and, thereby, hydrolyzed and converted into amino acids. Such amino acids, in turn, can be fermented to produce one or more mixed alcohols and amines. In addition, one or more extraction techniques can be applied to separate the protein/carbohydrate fraction from other constituents. Such extraction techniques can include, e.g., use of one or more ionic liquids to selectively extract a particular fraction.

Pre-treatment can include the use of one or more acids, bases, oxidizers, reducers, and/or enzymes. Exemplary pre-treatment conditions include strong and/or dilute acid hydrolysis (e.g., with H₂SO₄ and/or HCl), base hydrolysis or neutralization (e.g., with NaOH), heat treatment, sonication, and/or enzyme degradation (e.g., with one or more proteases, such as endoproteases, exoproteases, serine proteases (e.g., subtilisin, also known as alcalase), aminopeptidases, carboxypeptidases, endoglucanases, cellobiohydrolases, glycoside hydrolases (e.g., lysozyme), endoglucanases, glucanases, endoxyalanases, pectinases, sulfatases (e.g., arylsulfatases), cellulases, xylanases, as well as mixtures thereof, such that available as commercially available Pronase®, a mixture of proteolytic enzymes that are produced in the culture supernatant of Streptomyces griseus K-1).

Distillation/Extraction

The terpenoid compounds, alcohol, fermentation products, lipids, and amino acids from the biomass can be captured by distillation and solvent co-extraction. Any useful distillation and extraction techniques can be employed, including flash extraction, ionic liquid extraction, etc., to isolate one or more oils, aqueous phases, aqueous co-products, nutrients, etc.

Further distillation/extraction steps can also include any that separate liquid from solid phases, as well as separate two or more phases that can be differentiated based on solubility, miscibility, etc. (e.g., as those present in non-aqueous phases, aqueous phases, lipophilic phases, etc.) in any useful solvent (e.g., an organic solvent, an aqueous solvent, water, buffer, etc.). Phase separation techniques include flash separation (e.g., separation of liquefied mixture into biocrude oil, solid residuals, aqueous phase, and/or aqueous co-products), acid absorption (e.g., absorption of acid in a matrix to provide recovered nutrients and water for recycled use), filtration, distillation, solvent extraction, ion liquid extraction, etc. The resultant products and co-products can include one or more intermediate products that can optionally be processed to form useful end-use products.

EXAMPLES Example 1: Rapid Discovery and Functional Characterization of Terpene Synthases from Four Endophytic Xylariaceae

Endophytic fungi are ubiquitous plant endosymbionts that establish complex yet poorly understood relationships with their host organisms. Many endophytic fungi are known to produce a wide spectrum of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) with potential energy applications, which have been described as “mycodiesel.” Many of these mycodiesel hydrocarbons are terpenes, a chemically diverse class of compounds produced by many plants, fungi, and bacteria. Due to their high energy densities, terpenes (e.g., pinene and bisabolene) are actively being investigated as potential “drop-in” biofuels for replacing diesel and aviation fuel. Here, we rapidly discovered and characterized 26 terpene synthases (TPSs) derived from four endophytic fungi in order to produce mycodiesel hydrocarbons. Several of the identified TPS genes were expressed in an E. coli strain harboring a heterologous mevalonate pathway designed to enhance terpene production, and their product profiles were determined using Solid Phase Micro-Extraction (SPME) and GC-MS. Out of the 26 TPSs profiled, 12 TPSs were identified to be particularly useful, with a majority of them exhibiting both monoterpene and sesquiterpene synthase activity.

Introduction

Endophytic fungi have evolved to live within plant tissues but without causing overt harm to their hosts. This endosymbiotic relationship involves continual interactions between host and fungi using a variety of signals, including exchange of secondary metabolites that elicit specific biological responses (see, e.g., Oldfield E et al., “Terpene biosynthesis: modularity rules,” Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2012; 51(5):1124-37).

Recent studies aimed to characterize various secondary metabolites produced by endophytic fungi. In party, these studies revealed that many of these fungi emit a wide spectrum of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) while growing on plant and agricultural residues (see, e.g., Ul-Hassan S R et al., “Modulation of volatile organic compound formation in the mycodiesel-producing endophyte Hypoxylon sp. CI-4,” Microbiology 2012; 158(Pt 2):465-73; Kudalkar P et al., “Muscodor sutura, a novel endophytic fungus with volatile antibiotic activities,” Mycoscience 2012; 53(4):319-25; Strobel G et al., “An endophytic/pathogenic Phoma sp. from creosote bush producing biologically active volatile compounds having fuel potential,” FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2011; 320(2):87-94; Singh S K et al., “An endophytic Phomopsis sp. possessing bioactivity and fuel potential with its volatile organic compounds,” Microb. Ecol. 2011; 61(4):729-39; Tomsheck A R et al., “Hypoxylon sp., an endophyte of Persea indica, producing 1,8-cineole and other bioactive volatiles with fuel potential,” Microb. Ecol. 2010; 60(4):903-14; Strobel G A et al., “The production of myco-diesel hydrocarbons and their derivatives by the endophytic fungus Gliocladium roseum (NRRL 50072),” Microbiology 2008; 154(Pt 11):3319-28 (erratum in Microbiology 2010; 156(Pt 12):3830-3); Strobel G, “The story of mycodiesel,” Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2014; 19:52-8; and Gladden J M et al., “Tailoring next-generation biofuels and their combustion in next-generation engines,” Sandia Report No. SAND2013-10094, 2013 (100 pp.)).

Not only do these VOCs play important roles in the biology of these fungi, they also supply a rich reservoir of potential compounds for medicinal and industrial applications. Many VOCs are hydrocarbons and other oxygenated compounds that have been referred to as “mycodiesel” due to their high energy density and near zero oxygen content, which make them compatible with the existing engines and great “drop-in” biofuel candidates. A large fraction of “mycodiesel” compounds are terpenes and their derivatives. Terpenes, or isoprenoids, are one of the most diverse class of natural products with more than 55,000 different terpenoids known (see, e.g., Ouyang Z et al., “Identification and quantification of sesquiterpenes and polyacetylenes in Atractylodes lancea from various geographical origins using GC-MS analysis,” Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia [Braz. J. Pharmacognosy] 2012; 22(5):957-63).

Terpenoids have a myriad of biological functions (e.g., as antibiotics, hormones, anticancer agents, etc.) and industrial applications (e.g., as flavorings, fragrances, and biofuels, etc.) (see, e.g., Sosa M E et al., “Insecticidal and nematicidal essential oils from Argentinean Eupatorium and Baccharis spp.,” Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2012; 43:132-8; Saranya J et al., “Chemical composition of leaf essential oil of Syzygium densiflorum wall. ex wt. & arn.—a vulnerable tree species,” J. Essential Oil Bearing Plants 2012; 15(2):283-7; Steele C L et al., “Sesquiterpene synthases from grand fir (Abies grandis): comparison of constitutive and wound-induced activities, and cDNA isolation, characterization, and bacterial expression of delta-selinene synthase and gamma-humulene synthase,” J. Biol. Chem. 1998; 273(4):2078-89; Peralta-Yahya P P et al., “Identification and microbial production of a terpene-based advanced biofuel,” Nat. Commun. 2011; 2:Art. No. 483 (8 pp.); Rabe Petal., “Volatile terpenes from actinomycetes: a biosynthetic study correlating chemical analyses to genome data,” Chembiochem 2013; 14(17):2345-54; Chang M C et al., “Production of isoprenoid pharmaceuticals by engineered microbes,” Nat. Chem. Biol. 2006; 2(12):674-81; and Kasai M et al., “Taxadiene synthase structure and evolution of modular architecture in terpene biosynthesis,” Nature 2011; 469(7328):116-20).

In one non-limiting example, mono- and sesquiterpenes are the major components of VOCs produced by the endophytes Hypoxylon sp. CI4A, Hypoxylon sp. CO27, Hypoxylon sp. EC38, and Daldinia eschscholzii EC12 when grown on potato dextrose. These organisms also produce lower levels of other non-terpene compounds, such as ketones (e.g., 11% in a CI4A culture) and alcohols (e.g., 20% in an EC12 culture) that have potential biofuel applications, indicating that there is a myriad of potential useful biosynthetic pathways present in these organisms. To make use of these compounds in industry, the biosynthetic pathways that generate them need to be elucidated, enabling them to either be manipulated in their native host to increase productivity, or to be ported into an existing industrial host where their production can be more easily controlled.

The biosynthesis of isoprenoids includes the interplay of several building blocks and terpene synthases. Universal building blocks are the C₅ precursors isopentenyl pyrophosphate (IPP) and dimethylallyl pyrophosphate (DMAPP). Successive condensations of DMAPP with one or more IPP in a 1,4 fashion gives rise to linear isoprenyl diphosphate compounds of various chain lengths: geranyl pyrophosphate (C₁₀, GPP), farnesyl pyrophosphate (C₁₅, FPP), and geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate (C₂₀, GGPP; FIG. 1). These precursors are then catalyzed by terpene synthases (TPSs) into monoterpenes (C₁₀), sesquiterpenes (C₁₅), diterpenes (C₂₀), and other compounds.

Most terpene synthases belong to either the terpene synthase type I or type II superfamily, which can be distinguished by distinct motifs (see, e.g., Oldfield E et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2012; 51(5):1124-37; and Bogorad I W et al., “Building carbon-carbon bonds using a biocatalytic methanol condensation cycle,” Proc. Nat'l Acad. Sci. USA 2014; 111(45):15928-33). The catalytic reaction of type I terpene synthase involves carbocation formation by abstraction of two diphosphate groups from the substrate through complexation to two highly conserved motifs: the aspartate rich motif (DDXXD) and the NSE/DTE triad ND (L/I/V)XSXXXE.

The type II terpene synthase superfamily has a highly conserved DXDD motif that facilitates the formation of a carbocation by protonation of an epoxide or olefin (see, e.g., Oldfield E et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2012; 51(5):1124-37). To date, genome sequencing has uncovered more than a thousand different genes encoding terpene synthases in bacteria (see, e.g., Haehnel-Taguchi M et al., “Afferent and motoneuron activity in response to single neuromast stimulation in the posterior lateral line of larval zebrafish,” J. Neurophysiol. 2014; 112(6):1329-39; and He Z et al., “Global transcriptional, physiological, and metabolite analyses of the responses of Desulfovibrio vulgaris Hildenborough to salt adaptation,” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010; 76(5):1574-86), fungi (see, e.g., Van Dien S J et al., “Manipulation of independent synthesis and degradation of polyphosphate in Escherichia coli for investigation of phosphate secretion from the cell,” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1997; 63(5):1689-95; and Tang Y J et al., “Investigation of carbon metabolism in Dehalococcoides ethenogenes strain 195 by use of isotopomer and transcriptomic analyses,” J. Bacteriol. 2009; 191(16):5224-31), and plants (see, e.g., Khodayari A et al., “A kinetic model of Escherichia coli core metabolism satisfying multiple sets of mutant flux data,” Metab. Eng. 2014; 25:50-62; Carothers J M et al., “Selecting RNA aptamers for synthetic biology: investigating magnesium dependence and predicting binding affinity,” Nucleic Acids Res. 2010; 38(8):2736-47; and Gong C M S et al., “Metabolic engineering Deinococcus radiodurans for actinide bioprecipitation,” 227th ACS National Meeting, held on 28 March to 1 Apr. 2004 in Anaheim, Calif., Abstract NUCL 61 (1 p.)).

Recently, endophytic fungi have also been reported to produce a diverse spectrum of terpenes, including monoterpenes, sesquiterpenes, diterpenes, and other derivatives (see, e.g., Hassan S R et al., Microbiology 2012; 158(Pt 2):465-73; Singh S K et al., Microb. Ecol. 2011; 61(4):729-39; Strobel G A et al., Microbiology 2008; 154(Pt 11):3319-28 (erratum in Microbiology 2010; 156(Pt 12):3830-3); Strobel G A et al., Microbiology 2008; 154(Pt 11):3319-28 (erratum in Microbiology 2010; 156(Pt 12):3830-3); and Strobel G et al., “Natural products from endophytic microorganisms,” J. Nat. Prod. 2004 February; 67(2):257-68). These terpenes are not only biologically active secondary metabolites with great pharmaceutical potential, but they also have a high energy density, making them attractive renewable fossil fuel alternatives (see, e.g., Ul-Hassan S R et al., Microbiology 2012; 158(Pt 2):465-73; Singh S K et al., Microb. Ecol. 2011; 61(4):729-39; 28. Griffin M A et al., “Volatile organic compound production by organisms in the genus Ascocoryne and a re-evaluation of myco-diesel production by NRRL 50072,” Microbiology 2010; 156(Pt 12):3814-29; Strobel G A et al., “Endophytic microbes embody pharmaceutical potential: specific associations of fungal endophytes with plant hosts represent a large untapped area for discovery,” ASM News 1998; 64(5):263-8; and Strobel G A et al., “Taxol from fungal endophytes and the issue of biodiversity,” J. Indus. Microbiol. 1996; 17(5-6):417-23). However, there are few reports describing the discovery and characterization of the terpene synthase genes that produce these compounds (see, e.g., Shaw J J et al., “Identification of a fungal 1,8-cineole synthase from Hypoxylon sp. with specificity determinants in common with the plant synthases,” J. Biol. Chem. 2015; 290(13):8511-26).

Here, we undertook a systematical approach combining genome dataset mining, terpene biosynthetic pathway construction in E. coli, Solid Phase MicroExtraction (SPME), and GC-MS analysis to rapidly discover and characterize endophytic terpene synthases. We sequenced four endophytic fungi in the order of Xylariales (Hypoxylon sp. CI4A, Hypoxylon sp. CO27, Hypoxylon sp. EC38, and Daldinia eschscholzii EC12) and mined their genomes for potential TPS genes. A total of 26 putative TPS genes were identified, of which 12 were functionally expressed in E. coli and produced a wide array of monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes.

Discovery and Phylogenetic Tree Analysis of Putative Endophytic Terpene Synthases

The putative endophyte TPS genes were identified by searching the endophyte genomes for terpene synthase Pfam functional domains. The protein sequences of the putative TPSs were downloaded from the endophyte genomes published by the Joint Genome Institute (see, e.g., U.S. Department of Energy, “MycoCosm: the fungal genomics resource—Group name: Xylariales,” available at genome.jgi.doe.gov/Xylariales/Xylariales.info.html (last accessed Feb. 15, 2016)). Secretion signal peptides were predicted using the Signal P4.1 online tool (see, e.g., Petersen T N et al., “SignalP 4.0: discriminating signal peptides from transmembrane regions,” Nat. Methods 2011; 8(10):785-6).

The endophytic TPS protein sequences were compared to each other and to several TPS from plants and other fungi. All protein sequences were aligned by Clustal W in MEGA 6.0 (see, e.g., Kumar S et al., “MEGA-CC: computing core of molecular evolutionary genetics analysis program for automated and iterative data analysis,” Bioinformatics 2012; 28(20):2685-6). Neighbor joining trees were made by MEGA6.0 using the bootstrap method and Poisson model, with bar=0.2 substitutions per amino acid residue (FIG. 2A-2C). A sequence comparison of the endophytic TPSs with other plant and fungal TPSs was presented as rectangular trees, while the comparison amongst the endophytic TPSs was presented as a radiation tree.

Strains and Plasmids

E. coli strains DH10B and DH1 were used for cloning and production, respectively. Plasmids pJBEI-3122, pBbE1a, and pBbE2k were previously reported (see, e.g., Alonso-Gutierrez J et al., “Metabolic engineering of Escherichia coli for limonene and perillyl alcohol production,” Metab. Eng. 2013; 19:33-41). Plasmid pJBEI-3122 contained genes encoding seven enzymes of the mevalonate pathway: acetoacetyl-CoA synthase (AtoB), HMG-CoA synthase (HMGS), HMG-CoA reductase (HMGR), mevalonate kinase (MK), phosphomevalonate kinase (PMK), phosphomevalonate decarboxylase (PMD), and isopentenyl diphosphate isomerase (IDI). The protein sequences of the TPSs in this study and the geranyl pyrophosphate synthase (GPPS, GenBank: AF513112.1, GPPS_(Ag)) from Abies grandis (with the chloroplast signal peptide truncated) were used to generate codon optimized genes for expression in E. coli. A Ribosome Binding Site (RBS) for each putative terpene gene was created and optimized using an online RBS calculator available at the Salis lab (see, e.g., salislab.net). All the DNA sequences containing the RBS site and TPS or GPPS gene, flanked by BamHI and EcoRI sites, were synthesized by Genscript.

Reconstruction of the Terpene Biosynthetic Pathway in E. coli Strain DH1

Each synthesized TPS ORF, including the optimized RBS, was digested by the restriction enzymes BamHI and EcoRI and ligated by T4 DNA ligase (New England BioLabs, Inc., Ipswich, Mass.) into plasmid pBbE1a to create vector pBbE1a-TPS. The synthesized GPPS_(Ag) DNA fragment was digested by BamHI and EcoRI, and ligated into vector pBbE2k using T4 DNA ligase to generate the plasmid pBbE2k-GPPS_(Ag). The complete terpene biosynthetic pathway was reconstructed in E. coli strain DH1 by co-transforming all three plasmids: pJBEI-3122, pBbE1a-TPS, and pBbE2k-GPPS_(Ag). Plasmids pJBEI-3122 and pBbE2k-GPPS_(Ag) were also co-transformed into strain DH1 as a negative control.

Production of Terpene Compounds in E. coli

Transformants containing each TPS gene were cultured in 15 mL of LB medium with 100 μg/L of ampicillin, 34 μg/L of chloramphenicol, and 25 μg/L of kanamycin. The cultures were incubated at 37° C. shaking at 220 rpm overnight. One mL of overnight culture was then inoculated into 20 mL of fresh EZ-rich medium (Teknova Inc., Hollister, Calif.) containing 20 g/L of glucose, as well as the three aforementioned antibiotics, and incubated at 37° C. with shaking at 220 rpm until an OD_(600 nm) of 0.8 was reached. Then, terpene production was induced by adding isopropyl-β-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG) at the final concentration of 1 mM and incubating for another 20 hours at 30° C. with shaking at 180 rpm. Terpenes were extracted after 48 hours.

GC-MS Analysis of Terpene

The volatile terpene compounds in the headspace of each culture were analyzed by extracting VOCs with a preconditioned Solid-Phase Micro-Extraction (SPME) syringe consisting of 50/30 divinylbenzene/carboxen on polydimethylsiloxane on a Stable Flex fiber followed by GC-MS. The SPME fiber was explored into the headspace of each culture flask for an hour to saturate with the volatile terpene compounds produced by the various TPS-expressing strains. The syringe was then inserted into the injection port of a Varian 3800 gas chromatograph containing a 30 m×0.25 mm i.d. DB waxed capillary column with a film thickness of 0.25 μm. The column temperature was programmed as follows: 60° C. for 4 min., increasing to 120° C. at 10° C./min. and holding for 5 min., then increasing to 220° C. at 20° C./min. and holding for 2 min., finally increasing to 250° C. at 50° C./min. and holding for 4 min.

The carrier gas was ultra-high purity helium at a constant flow rate of 1 mL/min, and the initial column head pressure was 50 KPa. A two minute injection time was used to desorb the terpene compounds from the sampling fiber into an injection port (splitless mode, injection temperature—220° C.) of the chromatograph coupled with a Saturn 2000 ion trap mass spectrometer. MSD parameters included an EI at 70 eV, a mass range at 30-500 Da, and a scan speed at 2 scans/sec.

GC-MS data deconvolution was performed using the Automated Mass Spectral Deconvolution and Identification System (AMDIS) spectral deconvolution software package (v. 2.70, NIST, Gaithersburg, Md.). AMDIS deconvolution settings were as follows: resolution (medium), sensitivity (low), shape requirement (medium), and component width at 10. Spectral components were searched against the NIST 2011 mass spectral library, and only components with mass spectra match factors >85% were reported as tentatively identified compounds. Compounds with peak areas >1% of the total peak area in the chromatogram are reported.

A large number of terpenes were identified by GC-MS. To confirm their identity, several commercially available terpene standards were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich and analyzed using the same methodology (Table 1 and FIG. 20B). All terpenes herein that do not appear in in Table 1 are considered only to be putatively identified.

TABLE 1 GC peak analysis of terpene standards Retention % Total R- time peak Match match Compound (min.) area (%) (%) 1R-α-pinene 5.515 3.12 96.1 96.7 limonene 8.829 12.324 89.0 92.0 β-caryophyllene 17.454 37.631 94.2 95.4 (+)-valencene 18.765 20.175 93.6 96.0

GS-MS analyses were conducted for negative control experiments, in which E. coli lacked plasmid pBbE1a-TPS that encodes an identified TPS but included plasmids pJBEI3122 and pBbE2k-GPPS_(Ag) (Table 2 and FIG. 20B).

TABLE 2 GC peak analysis for negative control E. coli Retention % Total R- Compound (ID No. in time peak Match match FIG. 20B) (min.) area (%) (%) 2-ethyl-hexanolacetate (6a) 11.892 28.519 89 92.4 2-tridecanone (6d) 18.193 24.846 94 94.3 5H-pyrindine (6h) 23.114 14.198 96.2 96.5 ethylhexanol (6b) 14.758 8.15 96.2 97.4 2-undercanone (6c) 16.525 7.954 91.7 92.3 3-eicosene (6f) 19.305 6.869 94 95.4 z-5-decen-1-ol (6e) 18.38 4.951 86.2 90.6 2-pentadecanone (6g) 19.908 2.423 88.2 90.7

Identification of Terpene Synthase Genes in Four Endophytic Fungal Genomes

TPS genes were identified in the genomes of Hypoxylon sp. CI4A, Hypoxylon sp. CO27, Hypoxylon sp. EC38, and Daldinia eschscholzii (D. eschscholzii) EC12 by homology searches against conserved TPS domains. A total of 26 putative TPSs were identified in the genomes of these four endophytes, including seven TPSs from CI4A, five TPSs from CO27, six TPSs from EC38, and six TPSs from EC12. Analysis of the protein sequences determined that none of these TPS harbor a signal peptide. Protein sequence alignments with known TPSs determined that all the putative fungal TPSs fall into the type I terpene synthase superfamily and harbor a highly conserved aspartate-rich motif (DDXXD/E) (FIG. 12A). Also, all but cluster 5 TPSs (FIG. 2A) have a (N/D)DXX(S/T)XX(K/R)(D/E) NSE/DTE triad consensus sequence, which possess a X(D/K)XXXSXXRE triad (FIG. 12A).

Phylogenetic analysis of the 26 putative TPSs grouped all but four of them into five distinct clusters, suggesting that these four endophytic fungi may possess at least five distinct functional categories of terpene synthases (FIG. 2A). The endophytic TPSs were also compared to several plant and fungal TPSs and were found to have low sequence similarity with all the plant TPSs and most of the fungal TPS, except for two uncharacterized putative TPSs from Trichoderma virens (EHKY27518) and Neurospora tetraspema (EGZ75309) that shared higher sequence similarity with the three endophytic caryophyllene synthases and EC12-GS, respectively (FIG. 2B-2C). Functional characterization of each putative TPS was conducted in order to determine its catalytic activity.

Expression of Endophytic TPSs in E. coli

To determine their function, the 26 predicted TPS genes were codon optimized and expressed in E. coli along with the geranyl pyrophosphate synthase (GPPS) gene from Abies grandis (GenBank: AF513112.1, GPPS_(Ag)) and a plasmid harboring the entire mevalonate pathway (see, e.g., Alonso-Gutierrez J et al., Metab. Eng. 2013; 19:33-41). This plasmid was used to increase the flux of carbon through the terpene pathway with the aim of enhancing productivity and increasing the chance that even poorly expressed TPS will produce detectable levels of terpenes.

The VOC products of each TPS present in the headspace of the culture flask were extracted by SPME and analyzed with GC-MS. Of the 26 putative endophytic TPSs tested, 12 were active (FIG. 13), producing a mixture of mono-(C₁₀) and sesquiterpenes (C₁₅) (FIG. 12B and FIG. 14). In summary, no terpene compounds were produced by the TPSs in the cluster 1, and they are not discussed further. The TPSs in cluster 2 primarily produced monoterpenes, including pinene (1a, 1b), ocimene (1c), and limonene (1d), and a lower abundance (<20%) of sesquiterpenes. The TPSs in cluster 3 yielded a wide spectrum of sesquiterpenes and some monoterpenes. Caryophyllene (2d, 2e, 2g) and its isomers were the major product of these enzymes, accounting for up to 80% total peak abundance. The terpene profiles from TPSs in clusters 4 and 5 are less complex than cluster 3 TPSs, and include sesquiterpenes, i.e.g, chamigrene (3f), and gurjunene (2a, 2b). The non-clustered TPSs, i.e., EC12-SS (SS: Selinene Synthase) and EC12-ILS (IsoLedene Synthase), primarily produced sesquiterpenes selinene (2h) and isoledene (5a), respectively. The activity of these TPSs correlated well with the terpene products produced by their native hosts. All the major terpenes (e.g., pinene, limonene, caryophyllene, chamigrene, gurjunene, selinene, and isoledene) produced from the functional TPSs were detected in the VOC profiles of the four endophytes grown on potato dextrose. The functional endophytic TPSs had low protein sequence similarity compared to other type I TPSs from plants, but retained a conserved DDXXD motif.

An examination of other reports that describe recombinantly expressed TPS indicate that these enzymes tend to produce a single class of terpene, i.e. monoterpenes or sesquiterpenes (see, e.g., Oldfield E et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2012; 51(5):1124-37; Steele C L et al., J. Biol. Chem. 1998; 273(4):2078-89; Degenhardt J et al., “Monoterpene and sesquiterpene synthases and the origin of terpene skeletal diversity in plants,” Phytochemistry 2009; 70(15-16):1621-37; Chappell J et al., “Unraveling the catalytic specificity of terpene biosynthetic enzymes and engineering the biosynthesis of novel terpenes in yeast and plants,” In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol.—Animal 2008; 44:S27 (Abstract P-26); Hyatt D C et al., “Mutational analysis of a monoterpene synthase reaction: altered catalysis through directed mutagenesis of (−)-pinene synthase from Abies grandis,” Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2005; 439(2):222-33; Schwab W et al., “Mechanism of monoterpene cyclization: stereochemical aspects of the transformation of noncyclizable substrate analogs by recombinant (−)-limonene synthase, (+)-bornyl diphosphate synthase, and (−)-pinene synthase,” Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2001; 392(1):123-36; Bohlmann J et al., “Monoterpene synthases from grand fir (Abies grandis): cDNA isolation, characterization, and functional expression of myrcene synthase, (−)-(4S)-limonene synthase, and (−)-(1S,5S)-pinene synthase,” J. Biol. Chem. 1997; 272(35):21784-92; and Gambliel H et al., “Pinene cyclases I and II: two enzymes from sage (Salvia officinalis) which catalyze stereospecific cyclizations of geranyl pyrophosphate to monoterpene olefins of opposite configuration,” J. Biol. Chem. 1984; 259(2):740-8). There are a few reports using in vitro assays that show the production of both mono- and sesquiterpenes from high concentrations of GPP or FPP substrates (see, e.g., Nagegowda D A et al., “Two nearly identical terpene synthases catalyze the formation of nerolidol and linalool in snapdragon flowers,” Plant J. 2008; 55(2):224-39).

However, it was never demonstrated that this bifunctionality extends to an in vivo activity, so it is unclear whether or not this is a phenomenon that would actually occur in nature. Thus, this study is the first to demonstrate that TPSs can be bifunctional in vivo, producing both mono- and sesquiterpenes. It could be argued that the E. coli strain used in this study has artificially altered the levels of GPP and FPP, but several other TPS have been expressed in this strain that do not exhibit this characteristic. In addition, many other recombinant strains also have altered isoprenoid precursor levels, and none have had recombinant TPS that exhibit this behavior. Therefore, this phenomenon appears to be enzyme specific. It will be interesting to further investigate these enzymes to identify the structural features that enable this bifunctionality and to determine the impacts of GPP and FPP levels on product distribution. Also, it will be interesting to determine whether or not this is a widespread phenomenon that extends to the other TPS that have exhibited bifunctionality in vitro.

TPSs in the same cluster tended to produce a similar spectrum of terpene compounds. Thus, the following discussions are ordered by each cluster.

Cluster 2: Bifunctional α-, β-Pinene/α-Guaiene Synthases

Cluster 2 included two enzymes having a Pinene and Guaiene Synthase (PGS) function. In cluster 2, the TPS EC12-PGS from D. eschscholzii EC12 and the TPS EC38-PGS from Hypoxylon sp. EC38 were active and produced various terpenoid compounds, including β-cis-ocimene (C₁₀,1c), β pinene (C₁₀, 1a), and 1s-α-pinene (C₁₀, 1b) as major compounds (chemical structures are provided in FIG. 3A, and GC analyses are provided in Table 3 and FIG. 15A-15B).

TABLE 3 GC peak analysis for cluster 2 Retention % Total R- time peak Match match (min.) area (%)^(a) (%)^(b) TPS EC12-PGS from D. eschscholzii EC12 Compound (ID No. in FIG. 15A) β-cis-ocimene (1c) 9.524 21.06 94.7 96 β-pinene (1a) 7.994 17.64 92.5 93.3 1S-α-pinene (1b) 9.225 16.92 94.3 96.7 α-guaiene (1d) 16.482 11.03 92.1 93.7 viridiflorol (1e) 21.269 2.385 88.1 92.6 TPS EC38-PGS from Hypoxylon sp. EC38 Compound (ID No. in FIG. 15B) β-cis-ocimene (1c) 9.56 44.52 93.3 94.8 1S-α-pinene (1b) 9.259 21.04 95 96.7 β-pinene (1a) 8.041 9.40 93.9 94.5 α-guaiene (1d) 16.49 8.156 92.4 93.7 viridiflorol (1e) 21.269 2.076 89.3 92.6 ^(a)Match: the match factor was obtained by matching all peaks in the sample spectrum with peaks in the library. The match factor provides similarity between a sense of spectral peaks from the sample and peaks from the library, ^(b)R-match: the reverse match value was obtained by ignoring all peaks that were in the sample spectrum but not in the library spectrum. The percentage value presented represents the degree of similarity between the peaks from sample and peaks from the library.

The α-pinene, β-pinene, and β-cis-ocimene accounted for 55.6% and 75% of total peak area of GC spectra from strains expressing protein EC12-PGS and EC38-PGS, respectively, which indicates that these two enzymes are pinene synthases. Additionally, the existence of two stereoisomeric products of pinene suggests that these two pinene synthases fall into class II pinene cyclases (see, e.g., Gambliel H et al., J. Biol. Chem. 1984; 259(2):740-8; and Dewick P M, “The biosynthesis of C₅-C₂₅ terpenoid compounds,” Nat. Prod. Rep. 2002; 19(2):181-222).

FIG. 21 outlines a potential, non-limiting mechanism of pinene biosynthesis (see, e.g., Gambliel H et al., J. Biol. Chem. 1984; 259(2):740-8). Without wishing to be limited by theory, β-cis-ocimene may be the product of deprotonation followed by intramolecular electrophilic attack of a linalyl cation derived from GPP (see, e.g., Dewick P M, Nat. Prod. Rep. 2002; 19(2):181-222) or it is a possible artifact, as it has been reported to form in the injection port of the gas chromatography instrument used to analyze the products via thermal rearrangement of pinene (see, e.g., Stolle A et al., “Thermal rearrangements of monoterpenes and monoterpenoids,” Helvetica Chim. Acta 2009; 92(9):1673-719). Further analysis was required to determine whether this is a bona fide TPS product or an artifact. Interestingly, a significant amount of the sesquiterpene α-guaiene (C₁₅, 1d) was also produced by EC12-PGS (11.026% of total peak area) and EC38-PGS (8.16% of total peak area). Other minor products were detected as well, including α-selinene (C₁₅, 2h), alloaromadendrene (C₁₅, 2l) and its oxidation product viridiflorol (1e) (see, e.g., Bombarda I et al., “Spectrometric identifications of sesquiterpene alcohols from niaouli (Melaleuca quinquenervia) essential oil,” Anal. Chim. Acta 2001; 447:113-23) (see Table 3).

The GPPS from Abies grandis used in this study was reported to specifically produce GPP, accepting only one DMAPP and one IPP co-substrates (see, e.g., Burke C et al., “Geranyl diphosphate synthase from Abies grandis: cDNA isolation, functional expression, and characterization,” Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2002; 405(1):130-6). However, the E. coli strain used in this study harbors a native farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase (FPPS) gene (ispA), and is therefore the likely source of the FPP used to synthesize these sesquiterpenes (see, e.g., Fujisaki S et al., “Cloning and nucleotide sequence of the ispA gene responsible for farnesyl diphosphate synthase activity in Escherichia coli,” J. Biochem. 1990; 108(6):995-1000). The production of multiple monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes by these two TPSs indicates that they are bifunctional mono-/sesquiterpene synthases.

To date, the most thoroughly characterized pinene synthases are from plants, including Pinus taeda (see, e.g., Phillips M A et al., “cDNA isolation, functional expression, and characterization of (+)-alpha-pinene synthase and (−)-alpha-pinene synthase from loblolly pine (Pinus taeda): stereocontrol in pinene biosynthesis,” Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2003; 411(2):267-76), Abies grandis (see, e.g., Hyatt D C et al., Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2005; 439(2):222-33; and Bohlmann J et al., J. Biol. Chem. 1997; 272(35):21784-92), Artemisia annua (see, e.g., Lu S et al., “Cloning and functional characterization of a beta-pinene synthase from Artemisia annua that shows a circadian pattern of expression,” Plant Physiol. 2002; 130(1):477-86), Cannabis sativa (see, e.g., Günnewich N et al., “Functional expression and characterization of trichome-specific (−)-limonene synthase and (+)-a-pinene synthase from Cannabis sativa,” Natural Prod. Commun. 2007; 2(3):223-32), and Picea abies (see, e.g., Fischbach R J et al., “Monoterpene synthase activities in leaves of Picea abies (L.) Karst. and Quercus ilex L.,” Phytochemistry 2000; 54(3):257-65). All of these plant pinene synthases have been expressed in E. coli, and none of them can produce sesquiterpenes (see, e.g., Bohlmann J et al., J. Biol. Chem. 1997; 272(35):21784-92; Phillips M A et al., Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2003; 411(2):267-76; Lu S et al., Plant Physiol. 2002; 130(1):477-86; Günnewich N et al., Natural Prod. Commun. 2007; 2(3):223-32; Fischbach R J et al., Phytochemistry 2000; 54(3):257-65; and Katoh S et al., “Altering product outcome in Abies grandis (−)-limonene synthase and (−)-limonene/(−)-alpha-pinene synthase by domain swapping and directed mutagenesis,” Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2004; 425(1):65-76). They primarily produced α-pinene and β-pinene, as well as lower amounts of other monoterpenes, e.g., such as limonene, camphene, myrcene, and α-terpenolen (see, e.g., Hyatt D C et al., Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2005; 439(2):222-33; Bohlmann J et al., J. Biol. Chem. 1997; 272(35):21784-92; Phillips M A et al., Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2003; 411(2):267-76; and Günnewich N et al., Natural Prod. Commun. 2007; 2(3):223-32).

A δ-guaiene synthase from the plant Aquilaria crassna has also been characterized. Like the plant pinene synthases, it only produced a single class of terpene, i.e., sesquiterpenes: δ-guaiene, α-guaiene, germacrene A, β-elemene, and α-humulene (see, e.g., Kumeta Y et al., “Genomic organization of δ-guaiene synthase genes in Aquilaria crassna and its possible use for the identification of Aquilaria species,” J. Nat. Med. 2011; 65(3-4):508-13; Kumeta Y et al., “Characterization of δ-guaiene synthases from cultured cells of Aquilaria, responsible for the formation of the sesquiterpenes in agarwood,” Plant Physiol. 2010; 154(4):1998-2007; and Lee J B et al., “Induction, cloning and functional expression of a sesquiterpene biosynthetic enzyme, δ-guaiene synthase, of Aquilaria macrocarpa cell cultures,” Natural Prod. Commun. 2014; 9(9):1231-5). The endophytic pinene/guaiene synthases described herein have the same DDXXD motif as the plant pinene and guaiene synthases, but otherwise have low sequence similarity to the plant TPSs.

Cluster 3: α-, β-Caryophyllene Synthases

Cluster 3 included three enzymes having a Caryophyllene Synthase (CS) function. In particular, the TPSs CI4A-CS, CO27-CS, and EC38-CS were active (FIG. 14). These three TPSs produced multiple terpenes, including both mono- and sesquiterpenes, with these sesquiterpenes accounting for more than 90% of total peak area. Among these sesquiterpenes, different caryophyllene stereoisomers, such as α-caryophyllene (2g), caryophyllene-(II)(2d), humulen-(v1) (2c), and β-caryophyllene (2e) were most abundant, accounting for more than 50% of total sesquiterpene peak area (chemical structures are provided in FIG. 3B, and GC analyses are provided in Tables 4-6 and FIG. 16A-16C).

TABLE 4 GC peak analysis for TPS CI4A-CS from Hypoxylon sp. CI4A in cluster 3 Compound (ID No. in Retention % Total Match R-match FIG. 16A time (min.) peak area (%) (%) caryophyllene-(II) (2d) 14.588 13.24 88.1 88.5 humulene-(V1) (2c) 14.344 12.21 90.5 90.7 α-selinene (2h) 17.897 6.74 91.7 93.2 β-caryophyllene (2e) 15.026 6.38 92.9 93.4 α-guaiene (1d) 13.18 5.16 91.7 91.8 α-gurjunene (2b) 12.606 5.08 88 88.3 thujopsene-i3 (2i) 21.302 4.07 88.1 89.7 β-caryophyllene (2e1) 16.610 4.03 94 94.4 α-gurjunene (2b1) 14.062 3.71 89.1 90.8 α-gurjunene (2b2) 15.423 3.56 91.2 93.5 β-pinene (1a) 7.995 3.48 92.3 92.7 β-caryophyllene (2e2) 17.282 2.34 94.3 94.5 τ-gurjunene (2a1) 13.478 1.84 89.5 90.6 δ-elemene (2f) 15.83 1.78 85.5 90.1 α-caryophyllene (2g) 17.219 1.67 94.3 94.5 τ-gurjunene (2a) 12.263 1.47 90.5 92 1S-α-pinene (1b) 9.224 1.12 94.7 95.9 β-cis-ocimene (1c) 9.552 0.56 91.0 91.4

TABLE 5 GC peak analysis for TPS EC38-CS from Hypoxylon sp. EC38 in cluster 3 Compound (ID No. in Retention % Total Match R-Match FIG. 16B) time (min.) peak area (%) (%) caryophyllene-(II) (2d) 14.604 18.10 89.2 89.5 thujopsene-i3 (2i) 21.308 10.18 89.4 91.5 α-selinene (2h) 17.898 7.59 92.6 93.5 humulene-(V1) (2c) 14.352 5.94 90.8 91.2 (−)-α-neoclovene (2j) 14.074 4.76 90 90.2 β-caryophyllene (2e) 15.034 4.69 93.2 93.8 β-pinene (la) 7.997 4.36 92.9 93.5 α-gurjunene (2b2) 15.426 3.50 93.1 94.2 β-caryophyllene (2e1) 16.609 3.21 94.5 94.8 β-caryophyllene (2e2) 16.735 2.71 93 93.3 α-gurjunene (2b) 12.612 2.5 88.6 89 β-caryophyllene (2e3) 17.284 2.45 93.8 94 τ-gurjunene (2a1) 13.485 2.39 89.3 90.5 (+)-longifolene (2k) 15.165 2.37 83 83.3 τ-gurjunene (2a) 12.275 1.83 90.1 91.7 α-caryophyllene (2g1) 17.22 1.73 93.5 94.5 α-guaiene (1d) 13.184 1.41 90.3 90.8 1S-α-pinene (1b) 9.229 1.34 92.6 96.4 (−)-alloaromadendrene 15.952 1.24 88.7 90.2 (2l) β-cubebene (2m) 17.54 1 92.7 95.3 β-cis-ocimene (1c) 9.527 0.40 88.4 91

TABLE 6 GC peak analysis for TPS CO27-CS from Hypoxylon sp. CO27 in cluster 3 Compound (ID No. in Retention % Total Match R-match Fig. 16C time (min.) peak area (%) (%) caryophyllene-(II) (2d) 14.598 21.94 88.4 89 α-selinene (2h) 17.899 9.81 90.7 91.8 humulene-(V1) (2c) 14.346 6.71 91.5 92.1 β-caryophyllene (2e) 15.027 5.61 92.9 93.4 thujopsene-i3 (2i) 21.303 4.43 89 90.4 β-pinene (1a) 7.993 4.32 93.1 93.5 cyperene (2n) 14.068 4.15 90 91 α-gurjunene (2b2) 15.423 3.92 93.5 95.1 β-caryophyllene (2e1) 16.609 3.70 93.8 94.2 alloaromadendrene (2l1) 16.736 3.17 92.7 93 β-caryophyllene (2e2) 17.283 3.15 94.3 94.5 α-gurjunene (2b) 12.605 3.07 88.7 89 (+)-longifolene (2k) 15.159 2.61 81.7 82.9 α-guaiene (1d1) 13.477 2.48 89.3 89.9 α-caryophyllene (2g1) 17.22 2.12 93.8 95 α-guaiene (1d) 13.177 1.49 89.8 90.7 β-cubebene (2m) 17.539 1.27 90.9 94 (−)-alloaromadendrene 15.95 1.26 89.4 90.7 (2l) (+)-valencene (2o) 16.428 1.24 91.1 92.8 1S-α-pinene (1b) 9.222 1.21 93.4 96.8 τ-gurjunene (2a) 12.268 0.85 89.5 91 β-cis-ocimene (1c) 9.522 0.51 88.2 91.5

Overall, these three TPSs appear to be primarily caryophyllene synthases. In addition to β-caryophyllene and its stereoisomers, CI4A-CS from Hypoxylon sp. CI4A yielded various amounts of other sesquiterpenes, including humulen-(v1) (2c), gurjunene (2a, 2b), α-guaiene (1d), α-selinene (2h), etc., as well as monoterpenes, including β-pinene (1a), 1S-α-pinene (1b), and β-cis-ocimene (1c) (FIG. 3A-3B, Table 4). EC38-CS and CO27-CS produced a similar array of terpenes, except CO27-CS produced thujopsene-i3 (2i), α/τ-neoclovene (2j) and β-cubebene (2m), while EC38-CS produced (−)-a-neoclovene (2j), β-cubebene (2m), and (+)-longifolene (2k) (Tables 5-6). Without wishing to be limited by theory, the production of multiple terpenes by each of these enzymes is likely due to various cyclization reactions of different intermediate carbocations that are formed by intramolecular electrophilic attacks and deprotonations of FPP (see, e.g., Dewick P M, Nat. Prod. Rep. 2002; 19(2):181-222; and Davis E M et al., “Cyclization enzymes in the biosynthesis of monoterpenes, sesquiterpenes, and diterpenes,” Topics Curr. Chem. 2000; 209:53-95). FIG. 22 outlines a potential, non-limiting reaction mechanism of the formation of some of these terpenes.

There are no reports of fungal caryophyllene synthase, but there are several caryophyllene synthases from plants: cotton, Artimisia annua, maize, rice, and Arabidopsis (see, e.g., Huang X et al., “Identification and characterization of (E)-β-caryophyllene synthase and α/β-pinene synthase potentially involved in constitutive and herbivore-induced terpene formation in cotton,” Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2013; 73:302-8; Shen H Y et al., “Advances in sesquiterpene synthases (cyclases) of Artemisia annua,” Sheng Wu Gong Cheng Xue Bao [Chinese J. Biotechnol.] 2007; 23(6):976-81; Kollner T G et al., “A maize (E)-beta-caryophyllene synthase implicated in indirect defense responses against herbivores is not expressed in most American maize varieties,” Plant Cell 2008; 20(2):482-94; Cheng A X et al., “The rice (E)-beta-caryophyllene synthase (OsTPS3) accounts for the major inducible volatile sesquiterpenes,” Phytochemistry 2007; 68(12):1632-41; and Tholl D et al., “Two sesquiterpene synthases are responsible for the complex mixture of sesquiterpenes emitted from Arabidopsis flowers,” Plant J. 2005; 42(5):757-71). The plant caryophyllene synthases from cotton, maize, and Arabidopsis use FPP as a substrate, rather than GPP, and produced several sesquiterpene compounds, including β-caryophyllene, α-humulene, (−)-α-copaene, linalool, 4,8-dimethylnona-1,3,7-triene, (E)-a-bergamotene, and (E)-β-farnesene (see, e.g., Huang X et al., Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2013; 73:302-8; Kollner T G et al., Plant Cell 2008; 20(2):482-94; and Tholl D et al., Plant J. 2005; 42(5):757-71).

The caryophyllene synthase from rice has similar substrate specificity, but produced more than 25 different sesquiterpene compounds, including β-caryophyllene, β-farnesene, α-bergamotene, β-elemene, etc. Many caryophyllene synthases from plants share the same DDXXD motif with the endophytic TPSs, but have different NSE/DTE triad amino acid sequences and low protein sequence similarity. As with cluster 2 TPSs, the cluster 3 caryophyllene synthases are bifunctional, producing both mono- and sesquiterpenes.

Cluster 4: Bifunctional β-Chamigrene/β-Pinene and α-Gurjunene/β-Pinene Synthases

Cluster 4 included enzymes having a Chamigrene and Pinene Synthase (CPS) or a Gurjunene and Pinene Synthase (GPS) function. In cluster 4, the TPSs CI4A-CPS, CO27-CPS, EC38-CPS, and EC38-GPS were active (FIG. 14). The TPSs CI4A-CPS, CO27-CPS, and EC38-CPS produced similar terpenes, while EC38-GPS had a distinct profile. All four TPSs produced both monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes, indicating that, again, they are bifunctional mono-/sesquiterpene synthases. The TPSs CI4A-CPS, CO27-CPS, and EC38-CPS, produced β-chamigrene (C₁₅, 3f) as the major product (>34.8%), indicating that these three enzymes are primarily chamigrene synthases (chemical structures are provided in FIG. 3C, and GC analyses are provided in Tables 7-10 and FIG. 17A-17D).

TABLE 7 GC peak analysis for TPS EC38-CPS from Hypoxylon sp. EC38 in cluster 4 Compound (ID No.) in Retention % Total Match R-match FIG. 17A time (min.) peak area (%) (%) β-chamigrene (3f) 17.487 34.38 88.5 88.5 β-pinene (1a) 8.003 30.71 95.2 95.5 limonene (3b) 8.699 10.23 91.5 91.9 2-carene (3a) 8.362 5.23 94.5 94.9 β-cis-ocimene (1c) 9.518 4.0 94.6 95.4 4-methyl-3-(1- 10.121 1.65 94.4 95.6 methylethyldene)-1- cyclohexene (3d) β-elemene (2f) 16.475 1.02 90.7 91.1 1S-α-pinene (1b) 9.225 1.0 90.3 96.4 β-linalool (3e) 15.905 0.66 90.2 90.8

TABLE 8 GC peak analysis for TPS CI4A-CPS from Hypoxylon sp. CI4A in cluster 4 Compound ID No Retention % Total Match R-Match FIG 17B) time (min.) peak area (%) (%) β-chamigrene (3f) 17.502 61.28 89 89 β-pinene (1a) 7.995 16.24 94.6 94.7 limonene (3b) 8.694 3.80 91.7 92.3 β-cis-ocimene (1c) 9.517 2.53 95 95.4 2-carene (3a) 8.355 1.46 93.8 94.6 1S-α-pinene (1b) 9.223 0.86 88.9 95.9 4-methyl-3-(1- 10.116 0.854 93.5 95.1 methylethyldene)-1- cyclohexene (3d)

TABLE 9 GC peak analysis for TPS EC38-GPS from Hypoxylon sp. EC38 in cluster 4 Compound ID No in Retention % Total Match R-match FIG. 17C) time (min.) peak area (%) (%) α-gurjunene (2b) 17.454 20.41 92.7 94.2 β-pinene (1a) 7.996 16.36 92.4 92.8 limonene (3b) 8.698 9.832 90.8 91.7 β-elemene (2f) 16.478 4.597 91.1 92 2-ethyl-1-hexanol (5b) 14.753 4.321 96.4 97.2 β-cis-ocimene (1c) 9.523 3.093 92.2 93.3 L-alloaromadendrene 17.142 2.44 90.4 92.1 (2l) 4-methyl-3-(1- 10.121 2.424 94.3 95.5 methylethyldene)-1- cyclohexene (3d) δ-elemene (2f1) 14.237 2.208 91.9 94.7 β-farnesene (5c) 17.023 1.697 91.8 94.5 β-caryophyllene (2e) 16.607 1.687 87.3 88.7 (−)-alloaromadendrene 17.212 1.46 88.3 89.8 (2l1) (−)-isoledene (5a) 16.662 1.209 92.1 93.9 1S-α-pinene (1b) 9.225 1.078 91.7 93.1

TABLE 10 GC peak analysis for TPS CO27-CPS from Hypoxylon sp. CO27 in cluster 4 Compound (ID No. in Retention % Total Match R-match FIG. 17D) time (min.) peak area (%) (%) β-chamigrene (3f) 17.508 65.35 90.1 90.1 β-pinene (la) 7.982 10.39 93.6 93.8 β-elemene (2f) 16.48 3.99 91.8 92 limonene(3b) 8.687 3.89 91.4 91.9 β-cis-ocimene (1c) 9.515 2.35 94.6 94.7 (+)-valencene (2o) 17.618 1.90 95.7 97.7 τ-terpinene (3g) 8.346 1.50 94.5 95.3 4-methyl-3-(1- 10.116 0.883 94.1 95.6 methylethyldene)-1- cyclohexene (3d) 1S-α-pinene (lb) 9.22 0.59 90.8 96.4

FIG. 23 outlines a potential, non-limiting reaction mechanism for the biosynthesis of β-chamigrene. These three enzymes also produced lower amounts monoterpenes: β-pinene (1a), α-limonene (1d), β-cis-ocimene (1c), 4-methyl-3-(1-methylethylidene)-1-cyclohexene (3d), and α-pinene (1b), with β-pinene being the major monoterpene in each case (Table 7-10 and FIG. 17A-17D).

Other minor products included 2-carene (3a for EC38-CPS and CI4A-CPS), (−)-β-elemene (2f for EC38-CPS and CO27-CPS), (+)-valencene (2o for CO27-CPS), and τ-terpinene (3g for CO27-CPS). An exemplary, non-limiting mechanism for the biosynthesis of α-limonene, 2-carene, and τ-terpinene is represented in FIG. 21. There are no reports of a TPS producing chamigrene as the sole sesquiterpene. However, Wu et al. reported that an α-barbatene synthase from Arabidopsis produced a mix of α-barbatene, thujopsene, and β-chamigrene as major products but no monoterpenes (see, e.g., Wu S et al., “Surrogate splicing for functional analysis of sesquiterpene synthase genes,” Plant Physiol. 2005; 138(3):1322-33). The endophyte TPSs shared low sequence similarity with the plant chamigrene synthase, have the same DDXXD motif, and a different NSE/DTE triad.

The fourth TPS in cluster 4, EC38-GPS, produced both mono- and sesquiterpenes, a common theme with the endophyte TPSs herein (Table 9 and FIG. 17C). The monoterpene β-pinene (1a) and sesquiterpene α-gurjunene (2b) were the two major products of this enzyme, accounting for 16.4% and 20.4% of total peak area, respectively. Minor products included α-limonene (3b), β-elemene (2f), L-alloaromadendrene (21), β-cis-ocimene (1c), α-pinene (1a), β-farnesene (5c), β-caryophyllene (2d), (−)-isoledene (5a), and 4-methyl-3-(1-methylethylidene)-1-cyclohexene (3d). Schmidt et al. discovered an α-gurjunene synthase from Solidago canadensis, which produced germacrene D (50%), α-gurjunene (42%), y-gurjunene (4%) as major products but no monoterpenes (see, e.g., Schmidt C O et al., “Isolation, characterization, and mechanistic studies of (−)-alpha-gurjunene synthase from Solidago canadensis,” Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 1999; 364(2):167-77).

Cluster 5: r-Gurjunene Synthase

Cluster 5 included one enzyme having Gurjunene Synthase (GC) activity: EC12-GS (FIG. 14). Its major product was the sesquiterpene τ-gurjunene (4a, 58.7% of total peak area), suggesting that it is primarily a τ-gurjunene synthase (chemical structures are provided in FIG. 3D, and GC analyses are provided in Table 11 and FIG. 18).

TABLE 11 GC peak analysis for TPS EC12-GS from D. eschscholzii EC12 in cluster 5 Compound (ID No.) in Retention % Total Match R-match FIG. 18) time (min.) peak area (%) (%) τ-gurjunene (4a1) 17.114 50.07 90.5 91.9 τ-gurjunene (4a) 16.484 7.96 91.7 92.8 τ-muurolene (4b) 17.536 3.88 92 94.6 β-pinene (1a) 7.994 3.71 92.6 93.8 τ-elemene (4c) 17.748 3.44 91.6 94.4 1S-α-pinene (1b) 9.226 3.38 93.4 95.4 β-cis-ocimene (1c) 9.525 1.71 92.2 93.6

EC12-GS had a broader product profile compared to the α-gurjunene synthase from Solidago canadensis (see, e.g., Schmidt C O et al., Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 1999; 364(2):167-77), which only produced three sesquiterpenes as major products. Although gurjunene accounted for ˜60% of the terpenes produced by EC12-GS, it also produced the sesquiterpenes τ-muurolene (4b), τ-elemene (4c), and the monoterpenes β-pinene (1a), α-pinene (1b), and β-cis-ocimene (1c), indicating this enzyme is a bifunctional mono-/sesquiterpene synthase. A potential, non-limiting mechanism of τ-gurjunene formation is outlined in FIG. 22.

Unclustered TPS: α-Selinene and (−)-Isoledene Synthases

Unclustered TPSs included Selinene Synthase (SS) and IsoLedene Synthase (ILS). Putative TPSs EC12-SS and EC12-ILS shared low sequence homology with the other predicted endophytic TPSs and did not cluster. EC12-SS produced multiple mono- and sesquiterpenes, but α-selinene (2h) was the major terpene produced (50.7% of total peak area), which suggests that this enzyme is primarily a selinene synthase (chemical structures are provided in FIG. 3B, and GC analyses are provided in Table 12 and FIG. 19A-19B).

TABLE 12 GC peak analysis for non-clustered enzymes Retention % Total Match R-match time (min.) peak area (%) (%) TPS EC12-SS from D. eschscholzii EC12 Compound (ID No. in FIG. 19A) α-selinene (2h) 17.142 50.717 91.2 93.1 (−)-alloaromadendrene 16.485 8.15 91.3 92.3 (21) τ-elemene (4c) 17.746 6.71 93.5 96 β-pinene (la) 7.986 4.43 94.1 94.4 1S-α-pinene (lb) 9.223 4.24 94 94.8 β-cubebene (2m) 17.537 3.63 93.3 95.4 β-cis-ocimene (1c) 9.521 2.22 94 94.8 α-gurjunene (2b) 16.786 1.62 93.5 95.5 TPS EC12-ILS from D. eschscholzii EC12 Compound (ID No. in FIG. 19A) (−)-isoledene (5a) 12.652 10.8 90.5 91 iso-longifolene (2k) 15.622 6.76 85.7 86.2 β-caryophyllene (2e) 16.605 6.71 93.5 94.3 β-elemene (2f) 16.485 5.88 80.9 83.1 (−)-alloaromadendrene 13.821 2.24 85 85.7 (2l) α-gurjunene (2b) 12.853 1.90 85 85.9 (+)-valencene (2o) 16.107 1.5 86.1 88.3

Steele et al. reported the discovery of a δ-selinene synthase (ag4) from Abies grandis that produced more than 20 sesquiterpenes including δ-selinene (25.3%), (E,E)-germacrene B (17.4%), guaia-6,9-diene(9.7%), germacrene A (6.7%), δ-amorphene (6.4%), germacrene C (3.4%), α-selinene (1.7%), β-caryophyllene (1.5%), δ-cadinene (1.4%), and seli-3,7(11)-diene (1.2%) (see, e.g., Steele C L et al., J. Biol. Chem. 1998; 273(4):2078-89). Compared to this plant δ-selinene synthase, EC12-SS yielded fewer sesquiterpenes and a higher relative abundance of α-selinene (50.8%). It is also a bifunctional mono-/sesquiterpene synthase (Table 12 and FIG. 19A). FIG. 22 provides a proposed, non-limiting mechanism for selinene biosynthesis.

In contrast to most of the other endophyte TPS characterized, EC12-ILS produced only sesquiterpenes, with (−)-isoledene (5a) being the most abundant at 10.8% of the total peak area (Table 12 and FIG. 19B). Other terpenes were produced, including iso-longifolene (2k) and β-caryophyllene (2d) that accounted for 12.5% of total peak area. There have been other studies that reported the detection of isoledene in plants (see, e.g., Ouyang Z et al., Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia [Braz. J. Pharmacognosy] 2012; 22(5):957-63; Sosa M E et al., Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2012; 43:132-8; and Saranya J et al., J. Essential Oil Bearing Plants 2012; 15(2):283-7), and a putative isoledene synthase was predicted in the genome of Eucalyptus grandis (see, e.g., Myburg A A et al., “The genome of Eucalyptus grandis,” Nature 2014; 510(7505):356-62). However, EC12-ILS is the first isoledene synthase enzyme to be functionally characterized.

Potential Applications for Endophyte-Derived Monoterpenes and Sesquiterpenes

Next generation biofuels are expected to have high energy density and physicochemical properties compatible with current engine design, transportation systems, and/or storage infrastructure. Hydrocarbons derived from terpenes meet most of these criteria, as they are structurally similar to the compounds in petroleum distillate fuels and often have similar combustion properties (see, e.g., Edwards T et al., “Evaluation of combustion performance of alternative aviation fuels,” 46th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, held on 25-28 Jul. 2010 in Nashville, Tenn., Art. No. AIAA 2010-7155 (21 pp.)). For example, hydrogenated pinene (C₁₀) dimers were reported to contain high volumetric energy similar to that of jet fuel JP-10 (see, e.g., Harvey B G et al., “High-density renewable fuels based on the selective dimerization of pinenes,” Energy Fuels 2010; 24:267-73). The hydrogenated product of the sesquiterpene bisabolene (C₁₅) was shown to have better properties than D2 diesel, such as lower cloud point, a higher flash point, and a higher API gravity (see, e.g., Peralta-Yahya P P et al., Nat. Commun. 2011; 2:Art. No. 483 (8 pp.)).

Herein, the most abundant terpenes included pinenes and sesquiterpenes, such as guaiene, caryophyllene, chamigrene, gurjunene, and selinene. These terpenes are hydrocarbons or hydrocarbon-like compounds with a carbon content in the C₁₀-C₁₅ range, therefore being potential candidates for “drop-in” aviation fuels. Simultaneous satisfaction of combustion specifications and specifications for physical properties such as density, energy content, and viscosity often require blending of different types of hydrocarbons. The use of terpenes and terpene derivatives as blendstocks for renewable fuels for aviation and diesel applications has recently been discussed by Harvey B G et al. (“High-density renewable diesel and jet fuels prepared from multicyclic sesquiterpanes and a 1-hexene-derived synthetic paraffinic kerosene,” Energy Fuels 2015; 29(4):2431-6). For instance, blending hydrogenated sesquiterpenes with synthetic branched paraffins could raise cetane numbers and reduce viscosity, thereby producing biosynthetic fuels that meet applicable jet and diesel specifications.

In addition to their potential use as biofuels, most of the terpenes reported herein are major components of essential oils used in the fragrance and flavoring industries (e.g., α-guaiene, β-chamigrene, α-gurjunene, etc.). Also, many have potential pharmaceutical applications, e.g., as an anti-tumor and anti-repression agent (see, e.g., Zhang Z et al., “Synergistic antitumor effect of α-pinene and β-pinene with paclitaxel against non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC),” Drug Res. (Stuttg.) 2015; 65(4):214-8; Chen W et al., “Anti-tumor effect of α-pinene on human hepatoma cell lines through inducing G2/M cell cycle arrest,” J. Pharmacol. Sci. 2015; 127(3):332-8; and Guzmán-Gutiérrez S L et al., “Linalool and β-pinene exert their antidepressant-like activity through the monoaminergic pathway,” Life Sci. 2015; 128:24-9). Caryophyllene, a sesquiterpene, is not only a promising high energy “drop-in” jet fuel but also has multiple potential pharmaceutical applications, such as anti-cancer activity, anti-inflammatory activity, life-span elongation, neuroprotection, insulin secretion moderation, acute and chronic pain attenuation, and/or alcohol dependency release characteristics (see, e.g., Nakano C et al., “Identification of the first bacterial monoterpene cyclase, a 1,8-cineole synthase, that catalyzes the direct conversion of geranyl diphosphate,” Chembiochem 2011; 12(13):1988-91; Han L et al., “Trans-caryophyllene suppresses tumor necrosis factor (TNFα)-induced inflammation in human chondrocytes,” Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2014; 239:1061-6; Rufino A T et al., “Evaluation of the anti-inflammatory, anti-catabolic and pro-anabolic effects of E-caryophyllene, myrcene and limonene in a cell model of osteoarthritis,” Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2015; 750:141-50; Klauke A L et al., “The cannabinoid CB₂ receptor-selective phytocannabinoid beta-caryophyllene exerts analgesic effects in mouse models of inflammatory and neuropathic pain,” Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014; 24(4):608-20; Pant A et al., “Beta-caryophyllene modulates expression of stress response genes and mediates longevity in Caenorhabditis elegans,” Exp. Gerontol. 2014; 57:81-95; Liu H et al., “Neuroprotective effects of trans-caryophyllene against kainic acid induced seizure activity and oxidative stress in mice,” Neurochem. Res. 2015; 40(1):118-23; Suijun W et al., “A role for trans-caryophyllene in the moderation of insulin secretion,” Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2014; 444(4):451-4; Paula-Freire L I et al., “The oral administration of trans-caryophyllene attenuates acute and chronic pain in mice,” Phytomedicine 2014; 21(3):356-62; and Al Mansouri S et al., “The cannabinoid receptor 2 agonist, β-caryophyllene, reduced voluntary alcohol intake and attenuated ethanol-induced place preference and sensitivity in mice,” Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 2014; 124:260-8).

Conclusion

Previously, GC-MS was used to analyze the VOCs produced by four fungal endophytes (Hypoxylon sp. EC38, CI4A, CO27, and D. eschscholzii EC12) and hundreds of terpene compounds were detected (see, e.g., Ul-Hassan S R et al., Microbiology 2012; 158(Pt 2):465-73; Gladden J M et al., Sandia Report No. SAND2013-10094, 2013 (100 pp.); Banerjee D et al., “Muscodor albus MOW12 an Endophyte of Piper nigrum L. (Piperaceae) collected from north east India produces volatile antimicrobials,” Indian J. Microbiol. 2014; 54(1):27-32; and Riyaz-Ul-Hassan S et al., “An endophytic Nodulisporium sp. from Central America producing volatile organic compounds with both biological and fuel potential,” J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013; 23(1):29-35). However, most of the TPS enzymes that synthesize these compounds have not been identified. Here, we leveraged an E. coli strain harboring a synthetic mevalonate pathway for enhanced terpene production as a synthetic biology platform to screen 26 putative TPSs from these four fungi.

TPSs were identified and characterized by a combination of genomic data mining, phylogenetic analysis, protein sequence alignment, rapid product extraction with SPME, and rapid chemical characterization with GC-MS. This approach avoided time-consuming and challenging conventional enzyme discovery routes, such as functional genomics library construction and screening, or biochemical purification of native enzymes, in addition to specific challenges for TPS enzymes, such as terpene compound purification and identification, and thereby establishes a valuable and rapid process for novel TPS discovery. Using this approach, we discovered 12 novel TPSs clustered into four homology groups that have potential uses in medicine and other industries, including the nascent biofuels sector (see, e.g., Lane J, “9 advanced molecules that could revolutionize jet and missile fuel,” Biofuels Digest, Jun. 18, 2014 (4 pp.), available at biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2014/06/18/9-advanced-molecules-that-could-revolutionize-jet-and-missile-fuel/(last accessed Feb. 15, 2016)).

Example 2: Metabolic Engineering E. coli to Reroute the Nitrogen Flux into Terpenes for Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts

Recent strategies for algae-based biofuels have primarily focused on biodiesel production by exploiting high algal lipid yields under nutrient stress conditions. However, under conditions supporting robust algal biomass accumulation, algal proteins typically comprise up to ˜70% of the algae biomass. Therefore, economical utilization of algal biomass for production of multipurpose intermediate- to high-value bio-based products could promote scale-up of algae production and processing to commodity volumes. Terpenes are hydrocarbon and hydrocarbon-like compounds (e.g., compounds having a C:O ratio more than about 10:1) with high energy density, and are therefore promising candidates for value added bio-based chemicals and “drop-in” replacements for petroleum-based fuels.

In this Example, we demonstrate the feasibility of bioconversion of protein (e.g., using a synthetic amino acid mixture) into sesquiterpene, as well as bioconversion of algal protein hydrolysate into terpenes. To achieve this, the mevalonate pathway was reconstructed into an engineered E. coli YH40 with six different terpene synthases (TPSs). Strains containing various TPSs produced a spectrum of sesquiterpenes in minimal medium containing amino acids as the sole carbon source. Sesquiterpene production was optimized through three different regulation strategies, as described herein. The highest total terpene titer reached 166 mg/L, and was achieved by applying a strategy to minimize mevalonate accumulation in vivo. The highest yields of total terpene were produced under reduced IPTG induction level (0.25 mM), reduced induction temperature (25° C.), and elevated substrate concentration (20 g/L of amino acids (AAs)). The protein hydrolysate of a natural benthic algal polyculture was used as solo carbon source as well, in which the YH40-TPS strain yielded a reduced total terpene titer of about 26 mg/L due to the high salt concentration in the substrate.

This study demonstrates the feasibility of bioconversion of protein into terpenes, which are promising candidates for “drop-in” fuels in addition to various intermediate to high value bioproduct applications. The study also investigated the conversion of algal protein from waste-water derived polyculture algae biomass into various terpene compounds, which has the potential to improve the algal biofuel process feasibility through addition of high value-added products with process consolidation.

Introduction

The need for sustainable, domestically-produced replacements for petroleum has led to significant efforts for biofuels development (see, e.g., Jacobson M Z, “Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security,” Energy Environ. Sci. 2009; 2:148-73). Current carbon life cycle assessment suggests that production of biofuels from lignocellulosic and algae biomass provides up to ˜50% greenhouse gas emission, as compared to petroleum (see, e.g., Subhadra B et al., “An integrated renewable energy park approach for algal biofuel production in United States,” Energy Policy 2010; 38(9):4897-902; Davis R et al., “Techno-economic analysis of autotrophic microalgae for fuel production,” Appl. Energy 2011; 88(10):3524-31; Jacobson M Z, Energy Environ. Sci. 2009; 2:148-73; and Scott S A et al., “Biodiesel from algae: challenges and prospects,” Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2010; 21(3):277-86).

Recent strategies for algae-based biofuels have primarily focused on biodiesel production through exploiting high algal lipid yields under the nutrient stress conditions. However, nutrient stress significantly compromises the overall biomass quantity and subjects the culture to increased susceptibility to contamination and subsequent culture crashes (see, e.g., Adams C et al., “Understanding precision nitrogen stress to optimize the growth and lipid content tradeoff in oleaginous green microalgae,” Bioresour. Technol. 2013; 131:188-94; Davis R W et al., “Multiplex fluorometric assessment of nutrient limitation as a strategy for enhanced lipid enrichment and harvesting of Neochloris oleoabundans,” Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2012; 109(10):2503-12; and Sharma K K et al., “High lipid induction in microalgae for biodiesel production,” Energies 2012; 5(5):1532-53).

Under conditions supporting robust algal biomass accumulation, proteins typically comprise up to ˜70% of the ash-free dry weight of microalgae biomass (see, e.g., Becker E W, “Microalgae: biotechnology and microbiology,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1994 (293 pp.); Luque R et al., “Algal biofuels: the eternal promise?,” Energy Environ. Sci. 2010; 3:254-7; and Singh J et al., “Commercialization potential of microalgae for biofuels production,” Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 2010; 14(9):2596-610). A significant volume of research has been pursued to convert algal lipids and carbohydrates to biodiesel (see, e.g., de la Cruz V et al., “Integrated synthesis of biodiesel, bioethanol, isobutene, and glycerol ethers from algae,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014; 53:14397-40; Martin Metal., “Design of an optimal process for enhanced production of bioethanol and biodiesel from algae oil via glycerol fermentation,” Appl. Energy 2014; 135:108-14; and Sharma K K et al., Energies 2012; 5(5):1532-53), ethanol (see, e.g., Babujanarthanama R et al., “Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of dilute acid pretreated red algae (Gelidiella acerosa) for bioethanol production,” Energy Sources A 2014; 36(12):1305-14; Fasahati P et al., “Industrial-scale bioethanol production from brown algae: effects of pretreatment processes on plant economics,” Appl. Energy 2015; 139:175-87; and Li K et al., “An overview of algae bioethanol production,” Int'l J. Energy Res. 2014; 38(8):965-77), butanol (see, e.g., Anon, “Researchers convert algae to butanol,” Marine Pollution Bull. 2011; 62(4):658), methane (see, e.g., Chen Y et al., “Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a review,” Bioresour. Technol. 2008; 99(10):4044-64; and El-Mashad H M, “Biomethane and ethanol production potential of Spirulina platensis algae and enzymatically saccharified switchgrass,” Biochem. Eng. J. 2015; 93:119-27), and isobutanol (see, e.g., Razeghifard R, “Algal biofuels,” Photosynth. Res. 2013; 117(1-3):207-19).

Nonetheless, little has been reported regarding bioconversion of algal proteins. A recent work demonstrated the feasibility of converting algal protein to mixed short and medium chain fusel alcohols, such as isobutanol, 2-methyl- and 3-methy-butanol, as well as other potentially high value alcohols, including phenylethanol, acetoin, and butanediol (see, e.g., Huo Y X et al., “Conversion of proteins into biofuels by engineering nitrogen flux,” Nat. Biotechnol. 2011; 29(4):346-51). These medium chain alcohols can present several benefits over ethanol, including >25% higher energy density, and dramatically lower hygroscopicity and corrosivity (see, e.g., Peralta-Yahya P P et al., “Microbial engineering for the production of advanced biofuels,” Nature 2012; 488(7411):320-8). Despite the distinct advantages of these medium chain alcohols, the high oxygen content of these molecules could result in incompatibility with current engine infrastructure and with “fit for purpose” properties as “drop-in” fuels.

Isoprenoids, also referred to terpenes, are a group of natural products with over 55,000 structurally distinct chemical compounds. Compared to short and medium chain alcohols, these hydrocarbon and hydrocarbon-like compounds (e.g., compounds having a C:O ratio of greater than about 10:1), including monoterpenes (e.g., C₁₀ compounds), sesquiterpene (e.g., C₁₅ compounds), diterpene (e.g., C₂₀ compounds), and their derivatives, not only have various biological functionalities but also contain higher overall energy density. In particular the sesquiterpene caryophyllene has been deemed to be among the top three most promising increased energy density jet fuel compounds (see, e.g., Nakano C et al., “Identification of the first bacterial monoterpene cyclase, a 1,8-cineole synthase, that catalyzes the direct conversion of geranyl diphosphate,” Chembiochem 2011; 12(13):1988-91). Typically biologically derived fuel molecules have very high oxygen content (e.g., a ratio of C:O of up to 2:1 for ethanol) and can introduce significant fuel cost and materials properties hurdles for blending into the petroleum-derived fuels infrastructure (see, e.g., U.S. Department of Energy, “National algal biofuels technology roadmap,” May 2010 (140 pp.), available at www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/algal_biofuels_roadmap.pdf (last accessed Feb. 15, 2016). The near-zero oxygen content of terpene compounds, in addition to their high energy density, make them a particularly attractive candidate as “drop-in” fuel candidates for ground-based and aviation fuels.

Terpenes also have a variety of higher value chemical applications, e.g., as fragrances, flavoring agents, anti-fungal, and anti-viral, insect repellants, and pharmaceutical lead compounds (see, e.g., Han L et al., “Trans-caryophyllene suppresses tumor necrosis factor (TNFα)-induced inflammation in human chondrocytes,” Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2014; 239:1061-6; Klauke A L et al., “The cannabinoid CB₂ receptor-selective phytocannabinoid beta-caryophyllene exerts analgesic effects in mouse models of inflammatory and neuropathic pain,” Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014; 24(4):608-20; Liu H et al., “Neuroprotective effects of trans-caryophyllene against kainic acid induced seizure activity and oxidative stress in mice,” Neurochem. Res. 2015; 40(1):118-23; Paula-Freire L I et al., “The oral administration of trans-caryophyllene attenuates acute and chronic pain in mice,” Phytomedicine 2014; 21(3):356-62; Rufino A T et al., “Evaluation of the anti-inflammatory, anti-catabolic and pro-anabolic effects of E-caryophyllene, myrcene and limonene in a cell model of osteoarthritis,” Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2015; 750:141-50; and Singh R, “Facts, growth, and opportunities in industrial biotechnology,” Org. Process Res. Dev. 2011; 15(1):175-9). However, few studies have reported means for conversion of protein/algal protein to terpene compounds. In this study, we firstly demonstrate production of terpene compounds from synthetic amino acid mixture with an engineered E. coli strain harboring the reconstructed terpene biosynthesis pathway. The fermentation parameters were partially optimized to improve the terpene yield. A high protein biomass cultivated from wastewater in an Algal Turf Scrubber™ system (see, e.g., Adey W H et al., “Algal turf scrubbing: cleaning surface waters with solar energy while producing a biofuel,” BioScience 2011; 61(6):434-41) was pretreated and investigated as sole carbon source for the terpene production with the engineered E. coli strain. The production of terpene as a potential “drop-in” fuel compound through the utilization of one of major biochemical components of algae biomass, algal protein, and the addition of high energy density fuel compounds with “fit for purpose” properties could foreseeably diminish the process cost and improve the feasibility of algal biofuel.

Strains and Plasmids

The mutant E. coli strain YH40 (BW25113/F′ [traD36, proAB+, lacI^(q) ZΔM15] ΔglnAΔgdhAΔluxSΔlsrA) was generously provided by Professor James C. Liao from University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) (see, e.g., Huo Y X et al., Nat. Biotechnol. 2011; 29(4):346-51). Plasmids pJBEI3122, pBbE1a, and pBbE2k were provided courtesy of Dr. Jorge Alonso-Gutierrez from the Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI). Plasmid pJBEI3122 contained the mevalonate pathway genes encoding seven enzymes (see, e.g., Alonso-Gutierrez J et al., “Metabolic engineering of Escherichia coli for limonene and perillyl alcohol production,” Metab. Eng. 2013; 19:33-41): acetoacetyl-CoA synthase (AtoB), HMG-CoA synthase (HMGS), HMG-CoA reductase (HMGR), mevalonate kinase (MK), phosphomevalonate kinase (PMK), phosphomevalonate decarboxylase (PMD), and isopentenyl diphosphate isomerase (IDI), except the geranyl pyrophosphate synthase (GPPS) and terpene synthase (TPS).

All six selected terpene synthase gene and the GPPS gene (GenBank: AF513112.1, GPPS_(Ag)) from Abies grandis with the chloroplast signal peptide truncated were codon optimized based on E. coli codon bias. The Ribosome Binding Site (RBS) for each terpene synthase gene was created and optimized by online RBS calculator developed by the Salis lab (available at salislab.net). All the gene sequences containing RBS site and restriction enzyme cutting sites were synthesized by Genscript.

Reconstruction of the Terpene Synthetic Pathway into E. coli Strain YH40

Each synthesized terpene synthase (TPS) and GPPS_(Ag) ORF including the sequences of corresponding ribosome binding site were sub-cloned into plasmids pBbE1a and pBbE2K, respectively, under EcoRI and BamHI cutting sites to obtain vectors pBbE1a-TPS and pBbE2K-GPPS_(Ag), as described before (see, e.g., Gladden J M et al., “Tailoring next-generation biofuels and their combustion in next-generation engines,” Sandia Report No. SAND2013-10094, 2013 (100 pp.)). Plasmids pJBEI3122, pBbE1a-TPS, and pBbE2k-GPPS_(Ag) were co-transformed into expression host YH40 for terpene production. Plasmids pJBEI3122 and pBbE2k-GPPS_(Ag) were co-transformed into strain YH40 for use as negative controls.

The gene GPPS_(Ag) was amplified (Primer 1: 5-GTG TGG AAT TGT GAG CGG ATA AC-3 (SEQ ID NO:1), Primer-2: 5-GGA TCC CTC GAG TCA ATT TTG TCT GAA TGC CAC G-3 (SEQ ID NO:2)) from the vector pBbE2K-GPPS_(Ag) and subcloned into plasmid pJBEI3122, right downstream of gene isoprenyldiphosphate isomerase (idi), under the restriction cutting site BglII and XhoI, to obtain plasmid pJBEI3122-GPPS_(Ag). Additionally, the amplicon of gene GPPS_(Ag) was sub-cloned, under the EcoRI cutting site, into plasmid pBbE1a-TPS to obtain plasmid pBbE1a-GPPS_(Ag)-TPS. The right orientation of gene GPPS_(Ag) was confirmed by diagnostic PCR using primer 3 (5-CAT CCG GCT CGT ATA ATG TGT GG-3 (SEQ ID NO:3)) and primer 4 (5-GCTC CTC GGT TCC TCC AAC AAG-3 (SEQ ID NO:4)). Plasmids pJBEI3122-GPPS_(Ag) and pBbE1a-TPS, as well as pJBEI3122 and pBbE1a-GPPS_(Ag)-TPS, were co-transformed into both E. coli strain DH1 and YH40 for terpene production.

Production of Terpene Compounds by Engineered E. coli Strains

Transformants containing each terpene synthase were cultured in 15 ml of LB medium with 100 μg/L of ampicillin, 34 μg/L of chloramphenicol, and 25 μg/L of kanamycin. Cultures were incubated at 37° C. at 220 rpm overnight. Then, 15 ml of the overnight culture was centrifuged. Cell pellets were re-suspended twice into 4 ml of 1×M9 medium (see, e.g., Wu W, “Fuel ethanol production using novel carbon sources and fermentation medium optimization with response surface methodology,” Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2013; 6(2):42-53) and inoculated into 30 ml of 1×M9 containing 20 g/L of amino acid mixture (Sigma-Aldrich Corp., St. Louis, Mo.) as the sole carbon source. The culture was incubated at 37° C., 220 rpm until the OD_(600 nm) reached 0.8, and then terpene production was induced by adding isopropyl-β-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG) at the final concentration 1 mM. The flasks were cap-sealed and cultured for another 72 hours at 30° C., 200 rpm to allow terpene accumulation.

Terpene Production from a Synthetic Consortium of E. coli Strains (YH40-TPS)

ATS™ biomass samples were pretreated according to protocols from the National Renewable Energy Laboratories and hydrolyzed with 2 mg/mL Pronase® (Promega Corp., Madison, Wis.), following the manufacturer's protocol. The pretreated and hydrolyzed algal biomass was sterilized through filtration. E. coli strain YH40 containing the terpene biosynthesis pathway was cultured into 15 ml of LB medium, as described above. Overnight cultures were centrifuged, and cell pellets were re-suspended into 4 ml of pretreated ATS™ biomass hydrolysate. Re-suspended YH40-TPS were inoculated into the algal hydrolysate at a final concentration of 10% (v/v). Cultures were incubated at 37° C., 220 rpm and induced with 0.25 mM IPTG once the OD reached 0.8. Flasks were cap-sealed and cultured for another 72 hours at 25° C., 180 rpm for terpene production. Analytical samples were taken at the initial point of fermentation and at the end point of fermentation. Concentrations of total carbohydrate and amino acids were determined according to the established colorimetric protocols.

Terpene Analysis by GC-MS and Metabolite Analysis by LC-MS

Terpene compounds in the headspace were extracted with a preconditioned solid-phase micro-extraction (SPME) syringe consisting of 50/30 divinylbenzene/carboxen on polydimethylsiloxane on a Stable Flex fiber as described previously (see, e.g., Gladden J M et al., “Tailoring next-generation biofuels and their combustion in next-generation engines,” Sandia Report No. SAND2013-10094, 2013 (100 pp.)). The SPME fiber was inserted into the headspace of each culture flask for 30 minutes to absorb the terpene compounds.

Volatile terpene compounds absorbed to the SPME fiber were analyzed by GC-MS (Varian 3800) containing a 30 mm×0.25 mm i.d. DB wax capillary column with a film thickness of 0.25 μm, as described in a previous study (see, e.g., Gladden J M et al., Sandia Report No. SAND2013-10094, 2013 (100 pp.)). The column was temperature programmed as follows: 60° C. for 4 min., increasing to 120° C. at 10° C./min. and holding for 5 min., then increasing to 220° C. at 20° C./min. and holding for 2 min., and finally increasing to 250° C. at 50° C./min. and holding for 4 min.

The carrier gas was ultra-high purity helium at a constant flow rate of 1 ml/min. A two-minute injection time was used to desorb the terpene compounds from the sampling fiber into a splitless injection (220° C.) of the chromatograph coupled with a Saturn 2000 ion trap mass spectrometer. MSD parameters included an EI at 70 eV, a mass range at 30-500 Da, and a scan speed at 2 scans/sec. Spectral components were searched against the NIST 2011 mass spectral library, and only components with mass spectra match factors >85% were reported as tentatively identified compounds. Compounds with peak areas >1% of the total peak area in the chromatogram are reported herein.

Twenty-four hours after induction, cultures were centrifuged at 14,000 rpm for 10 min. and rinsed with cold DI water three times. Cell pellets were resuspended with 1 ml of methanol and placed in a bead beater apparatus for two rounds of cell disruption at 4° C. to completely break down the cells. The mixture was centrifuged, and the supernatant were transferred to new 2 ml vials. 750 μl of DI water was added into sediment lysate and vortexed vigorously at 4° C. The supernatant was then combined with methanol extract, the methanol in the mixture was blow off by N₂ gas, and the leftover mixture was filtrated through a 3 KDa MWCO spin column (Millipore). The metabolites were analyzed using LC-MS according to the method of Rodriguez S et al., “Production and quantification of sesquiterpenes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, including extraction, detection and quantification of terpene products and key related metabolites,” Nat. Protoc. 2014; 9(8):1980-96.

Estimation of Terpene Titer in Cultures

Serial dilutions of pinene, limonene, and caryophyllene were added into the same amount of culture media, with inoculum of negative control strain to simulate the liquid-gas phase balance of terpene compounds produced in the culture. The flasks were sealed and incubated under same conditions as terpene formation strains. Terpene compounds in the headspace were collected by SPME, as described above. The adsorption time was carefully optimized to ensure that fibers were not saturated and that amounts of absorbed terpene compounds were in linearly correlated to the standard curve. The same adsorption time was applied for all the cultures. Concentrations of terpene compounds produced in the culture were calculated by referring to the standard curve.

Terpene Production from Amino Acids Through Mevalonate Pathway Reconstruction

In nature, isoprenoids or terpenes are synthesized either by the mevalonate pathway (MEV) or by the deoxy-D-xylulose 5-phosphate pathway (DXP) in bacteria, fungi, plants, and animals (see, e.g., Anthony J R et al., “Optimization of the mevalonate-based isoprenoid biosynthetic pathway in Escherichia coli for production of the anti-malarial drug precursor amorpha-4,11-diene,” Metab. Eng. 2009; 11(1):β-9; Maury J et al., “Reconstruction of a bacterial isoprenoid biosynthetic pathway in Saccharomyces cerevisiae,” FEBS Lett. 2008; 582(29):4032-8; Miziorko H M, “Enzymes of the mevalonate pathway of isoprenoid biosynthesis,” Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2011; 505(2):131-43; Pitera D J et al., “Balancing a heterologous mevalonate pathway for improved isoprenoid production in Escherichia coli,” Metab. Eng. 2007; 9(2):193-207; Amslinger S et al., “Biosynthesis of terpenes: preparation of (E)-1-hydroxy-2-methyl-but-2-enyl 4-diphosphate, an intermediate of the deoxyxylulose phosphate pathway,” J. Org. Chem. 2002; 67(13):4590-4; Rohdich F et al., “Studies on the nonmevalonate terpene biosynthetic pathway: metabolic role of IspH (LytB) protein,” Proc. Nat'l Acad. Sci. USA 2002; 99(3):1158-63; and Rohdich F et al., “Deoxyxylulose phosphate pathway of isoprenoid biosynthesis: discovery and function of ispDEFGH genes and their cognate enzymes,” Pure Appl. Chem. 2003; 75(2-3):393-405).

In the mevalonate pathway, terpene biosynthesis is initiated by the condensation of two acetyl-CoA to produce acetoacetyl-CoA, in which acetyl-CoA is a critical niche in the central metabolism. Amino acids can be metabolized to form acetyl-CoA through pyruvate (Ala, Ser, Thr, Trp, Gly, Cys), through acetylacetate-CoA (Phe, Tyr, Trp, Lys, Leu), or through the TCA cycle (Pro Arg, His, Thr, Val, Ile, Met, Phe, Tyr). Both pathways share a common node: acetyl-CoA. Thus, it may be possible to produce terpenes from protein lysate through metabolic engineering of these pathways.

In this Example, our synthetic biology strategy aimed to convert amino acids to high energy density and value-added terpene products through reconstruction of the terpene biosynthesis pathway into an E. coli chassis strain, YH40 (see, e.g., Huo Y X et al., Nat. Biotechnol. 2011; 29(4):346-51). The enzymes in the mevalonate pathway diverted the metabolic flux from acetyl-CoA to the dimethylallyl pyrophosphate (DMAPP) and isopentenyl pyrophosphate (IPP) formation and further catalyzed by GPPS and TPS to produce terpene. As described herein, twelve novel terpene synthases were discovered through a synthetic biology platform.

Of the 12 novel terpene synthases, six were selected and sub-cloned downstream of the mevalonate pathway with truncated GPPS_(Ag) (Abies grandis geranyl diphosphate synthase (GPPS2) mRNA, GenBank No. AF513112.1) to demonstrate terpene production from protein. These six terpene synthases included HypCI4A-6706 (SEQ ID NO:31, cluster 3, a caryophyllene synthase), HypCI4A-322581 (SEQ ID NO:41, cluster 4, a chamigrene and pinene synthase), HypEC38-80361 (SEQ ID NO:45, cluster 4, a gurjunene and pinene synthase), DalEC12-315006 (SEQ ID NO:54, cluster 5, a gurnunene synthase), DalEC12-24646 (SEQ ID NO:62, non-clustered, a selinene synthase), and DalEC12-70183 (SEQ ID NO:64, non-clustered, an isoledene synthase).

Both monoterpene and sesquiterpene were detected from the culture of strains containing these six TPSs when grown on M9 medium including an amino acid mixture as the sole carbon source. GC analyses are provided in Table 13-18 and FIGS. 28-33.

TABLE 13 GC peak analysis for YH40-HypCI4A-322581 on amino acids Compound (ID No. in Retention % Total Match R-match FIG. 28) time (min.) peak area (%) (%) β-chamigrene (f) 18.518 43.135 89.5 91.4 limonene (b) 8.777 3.145 92.3 92.5 β-pinene (a) 8.067 2.518 94.4 94.7 eremophila-1(10), 18.663 1.051 94.2 95.8 11-diene (g) p-cymene (d) 10.018 0.691 95.5 97.5 τ-terpinene (c) 9.581 0.469 89.1 95.6 4-methy1-3-(l- 10.203 0.395 92.9 95.9 methylethylidene)- 1-cyclohexene (e)

TABLE 14 GC peak analysis for YH40-DalEC12-315006 on amino acids Compound (ID No. in Retention % Total Match R-match FIG. 29) time (min) peak area (%) (%) limonene (b) 8.759 17.701 91.5 91.6 caryophyllene (l) 17.319 2.768 95.2 96.1 β-chamigrene (f) 18.547 1.82 88.9 90.1 (+)-valencene (m) 18.701 1.508 95.2 96.1 butylated hydroxytoluene 20.121 1.303 91.3 92.6 (n) β-pinene (a) 8.038 0.971 89.2 93.8 1R-α-pinene (j) 5.428 0.927 93.2 96.9 ethyl propanoate (i) 4.26 0.86 88.7 92.2 1,3,5-cycloheptatriene (k) 5.879 0.38 86.4 93.8

TABLE 15 GC peak analysis for YH40-DalEC12-70183 on amino acids Compound (ID No. in Retention % Total Match R-match FIG. 30) time (min.) peak area (%) (%) 1R,4R,7R,11R-1,3,4,7- 15.396 6.781 84.2 86.6 tetramethyltricyclo [5.3.1.0(4,11)]undec-2-ene (x) neoisolongifolene (s) 12.848 4.874 89.6 90.5 β-caryophyllene (l) 17.321 2.008 94.5 95.5 β-chamigrene (f) 18.551 1.345 89.9 90.8 thujopsene-I3 (r) 14.06 1.031 88.5 90 cedrene-V6 (t) 13.054 0.935 87.1 88.4 globulol (a3) 20.527 0.825 71.6 78.3 6-methyl-2,4-di-tert-butyl- 20.125 0.823 91.8 93.2 phenol (a2) 1-(allyloxy)-4-tert- 13.297 0.792 80.9 87.5 butylbenzene (u) α-gurjunene (w) 14.523 0.735 77.8 82.7 β-caryophyllene (l) 17.625 0.712 90.1 95.1 β-caryophyllene (l) 15.953 0.66 83.3 86.1 isolongifolene-5-ol (q) 10.505 0.571 81.2 83.6 β-neoclovene (v) 13.899 0.508 87.5 89.9 cis-β-ocimene (o) 9.586 0.505 94 96.7 thujopsene-I3 (r) 12.439 0.483 88.5 90.5 2,4-di-tert-butylphenol (a4) 23.165 0.467 90.3 93.2 1R-α-pinene (i) 9.284 0.422 91.6 96.2 τ-gurjunene (y) 15.594 0.333 85.6 88.5 (+)-valencene (m) 18.704 0.327 93 94 β-pinene (a) 8.036 0.277 90.3 95.9 geranyl acetate (a1) 18.892 0.228 85.9 92.5 (+)-longifolene (z) 16.312 0.195 83.4 87.8

TABLE16 GC peak analysis for YH40-HypEC38-80361 on amino acids Compound (ID No. in Retention % Total Match R-match FIG. 31) time (min.) peak area (%) (%) β-chamigrene (f) 18.543 0.832 89.2 90.4 β-caryophyllene (l) 17.315 0.464 93.2 93.5 (+)-valencene (m) 18.7 0.382 93.1 94.5 2,4-di-tert-butylphenol (a4) 23.157 0.28 87.8 91 limonene (b) 8.764 0.097 83.1 90.6

TABLE 17 GC peak analysis for YH40-DalEC12-24646 on amino acids Compound (ID No. in Retention % Total Match R-match FIG. 32) time (min.) peak area (%) (%) τ-gurjunene (y) 18.111 17.055 89.5 89.6 α-gurjunene (a5) 17.145 2.29 90.9 91.2 τ-elemene (a6) 18.853 1.557 91.9 92.4 β-pinene (a) 8.054 1.482 94.8 95.4 cis-β-ocimene (o) 9.596 1.359 96.3 96.7 1S-α-pinene (i) 9.295 0.943 93.7 96.5 β-chamigrene (f) 18.547 0.863 89.2 90.6 α-gurjunene (a5) 17.891 0.842 92.1 94.4 α-gurjunene (a5) 17.589 0.66 93.7 95.7 butylated hydroxyto- 20.119 0.435 89.8 92.2 luene (n) 2,4-di-tert-butylphenol 23.161 0.416 92.2 94.6 (a4) τ-gurjunene (y) 17.459 0.352 91.3 94.3

TABLE 18 GC peak analysis for YH40-HypCI4A-6706 on Amino Acids Compound ID No in Retention % Total Match R-match FIG. 33) time (min.) peak area (%) (%) α-gurjunene (a5) 14.264 12.082 88.2 89.3 caryophyllene-(I1) (b1) 14.815 10.418 88.1 88.8 longifolene-(V4) (z) 14.554 8.853 90.8 91.5 (−)-α-gurjunene (a5) 15.664 4.076 94.2 94.7 β-maaliene (a7) 12.764 3.763 88.2 88.8 (−)-alloaromadendrene 17.283 3.654 92.8 93.7 (b3) β-caryophyllene (l) 15.228 3.601 93.9 94.7 2-isopropeny1-4a,8- 13.354 3.387 90 90.3 dimethyl- 1,2,3,4,4a,5,6,7- octahydronaphthalene (a8) α-selinene (b5) 22.629 3.092 89 91.1 α-gurjunene (a5) 12.494 2.601 89.2 90 β-pinene (a) 8.061 2.294 95 95.7 α-selinene (b5) 18.973 2.214 90.7 92.8 (+)-longifolene (z) 15.353 2.111 80.8 81.7 5β,7β-H,10α-eudesm- 19.986 1.906 85.3 87 11-en-1α-ol (b7) 2-tridecanone (b6) 19.294 1.702 92.4 93.7 β-chamigrene (f) 18.508 1.272 89.8 90.2 thujopsene-(I2) (a9) 13.662 1.236 88.6 91 (+)-valencene (m) 18.66 1.23 94.7 95.8 limonene (c) 8.773 1.22 91.8 93 (−)-alloaromadendrene 17.469 1.191 92.9 94.1 (b3) thujopsene-(I2) (a9) 16.184 1.163 83.5 85.3 thujopsene-I3 (r) 12.413 0.954 89.5 90.9 α-humulene (b4) 18.176 0.835 89.8 95.9 β-caryophyllene (l) 18.256 0.787 93.2 95.3 1S-α-pinene (i) 9.294 0.749 91.6 96.9 (+)-valencene (m) 17.019 0.661 88.6 93 1,2,3,6-tetramethyl- 16.011 0.576 78.5 89.3 bicyclo [2.2.2]octa-2,5- diene (b2) β-cis-ocimene (o) 9.594 0.436 90.6 95.9 (−)-alloaromadendrene 16.934 0.361 86.6 92.3 (b3) 1R-α-pinene (j) 5.458 0.272 84.6 95.6

No terpene compounds were detected in the negative control strains. Among the six TPSs, five of them produced sesquiterpene as the most abundant compounds in the culture headspace, except TPS-315006 (YH40-DalEC12-315006) that produced limonene (17.70% of total peak area) as the major product along with minor amounts of other sesquiterpene compounds: caryophyllene, chamigrene, valencene, pinene, and others. Surprisingly, this TPS was identified as a τ-gurjunene synthase (see, e.g., Gladden J M et al., Sandia Report No. SAND2013-10094, 2013 (100 pp.)), which produced τ-gurjunene as the most abundant compound (accounting for 58.03% of total peak area) when the strain DH1-TPS-315006 grew on EZ-rich medium; and no obvious limonene was detected other than pinene. Compared to the host E. coli DH1 strain, the YH40 strain is a derivative of E. coli BW25113 and was specifically engineered to boost amino acid utilization (see, e.g., Huo Y X et al., Nat. Biotechnol. 2011; 29(4):346-51).

The YH40 strains containing TPS-70183 and TPS-6706 produced the widest spectrum of terpene compounds, as compared to the other four TPSs. More than 15 terpene compounds were detected from cultures of each strain. The terpene compounds produced in the order of abundance included the following: 1R,4R,7R,11R-1,3,4,7-tetramethyltricyclo[5.3.1.0(4,11)]undec-2-ene (6.8%), neoisolongifolene (4.9%), β-caryophyllene (2.0%), β-chamigrene (1.35%), and thujopsene-I3(1.0%). By comparing the substrate dependence of the strain containing TPS-70183, isoledene was the most abundant compound produced from glucose as the carbon source, but this compound was not detected from a culture with amino acids. Instead, 1R,4R,7R,11R-1,3,4,7-tetramethyltricyclo [5.3.1.0(4,11)]undec-2-ene (6.8%) was the major terpene product. Additionally, β-chamigrene and thujopsene-I3 were detected, which wasn't produced using a glucose-based fermentation broth.

Different carbon sources can provide different products, even when the same TPS is employed. In one instance, the product profile difference between two different carbon sources indicates that TPSs in two strains grown on two different media can have different catalytic reaction mechanisms. The variation in the terpene profile was also observed for TPS-6706 and other terpene synthases, in which strains incubated with an amino acid-based medium instead of glucose. TPS-6706 was identified as caryophyllene synthase and yielded caryophyllene (40% of total peak area) as the most abundant compound when the strain was grown on glucose. However, α-gurjunene was produced as the most abundant terpene compound (12.08% of total peak area) when grown on amino acids, followed by caryophyllene (10.42% of total peak area). Similar to DH1-6706 grown on glucose, YH40-6706 produced multiple sesquiterpene compounds, as well as several monoterpene compounds. Compared to the caryophyllene synthase isolated from cotton (see, e.g., Huang X et al., “Identification and characterization of (E)-β-caryophyllene synthase and α/β-pinene synthase potentially involved in constitutive and herbivore-induced terpene formation in cotton,” Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2013; 73:302-8), which yielded a small number of sesquiterpenes, the caryophyllene synthases in this study produced more than 20 sesquiterpene compounds, as well as monoterpene compounds.

TPS-322581 was identified as chamigrene synthase, which produced chamigrene as the major product when grown on glucose. Similarly, the strain YH40-322581 produced chamigrene as the most abundant terpene (43% of total peak area) when cultured on amino acids. Besides chamigrene, the additional monoterpenes limonene and pinene were also detected but with abundance less than 3.2% of total peak area. Compared to TPS-6706, this enzyme tends to produce a single sesquiterpene compound, suggesting its distinct catalytic mechanism from TPS-6706.

For TPS-80361 the three most abundant terpene compounds were β-chamigrene, β-caryophyllene, and (+)-valencene, indicating the enzyme is a sesquiterpene synthase. Similar differences in the terpene profile were observed for this enzyme as well. TPS-80361 was determined to be a α-gurjunene synthase, which produced α-gurjunene as a major product from glucose. Various monoterpenes were present in less abundant amounts, where such monoterpenes included pinene, limonene, and its isomers. When grown on amino acids, however, the strain produced three major sesquiterpene compounds mentioned above and monoterpenes were barely detected.

TPS-24646 was identified as α-selinene synthase, which produced α-selinene (50.7% of total peak area) as the most abundant compound from glucose. However, when cultured on protein as the sole carbon source, gurjunene was detected as the major product (21.2% of total peak area). Besides gurjunene, β-chamigrene and other monoterpenes (e.g., such as elemene, pinene and ocimene) were also detected in the headspace of the culture, which is similar to the terpene profile from glucose.

Optimization of Terpene Production Through Different Metabolic Flux Regulations

TPS-322581 (a chamigrene synthase) was chosen as an example for metabolic flux optimization since this enzyme produces chamigrene as the sole sesquiterpene compound. To achieve maximal metabolic flux for terpene production, three regulation strategies were designed and constructed, as shown in FIG. 24. In the first construct (construct 1 in FIG. 24), all mevalonate pathway enzymes were cloned into one vector pJBEI3122 under two promoters with different strength. The first three enzymes (AtoB, HMGS, and HMGR) were cloned under a medium strength promoter lacUV5, whereas the last four enzymes (MK, PMK, PMD, and idi) were expressed downstream of a strong promoter Ptrc to obtain maximal metabolic flux to GPPS. The signal peptide (truncated GPPS_(Ag)) and chamigrene synthase (TS) were expressed into two separate plasmids under strong promoters, T7 and Ptrc, respectively, to generate a large metabolic flux driving force toward the final products. These three plasmids were co-transformed into strain YH40 as an engineered host for terpene production.

In the second construct (construct 2 in FIG. 24), the GPPS_(Ag) peptide was cloned downstream of the enzyme idi under the Ptrc promoter in the plasmid pJBEI3122 to achieve the homologous expression of the intermediate pathway enzymes, while the chamigrene synthase was expressed in a separate plasmid under the strong promoter Ptrc. Both plasmids were co-transformed into strain YH40.

In the third design (construct 3 in FIG. 24), the GPPS_(Ag) peptide was cloned into the same plasmid with TPS under the strong promoter Ptrc but ahead of the TPS. Plasmid pJBEI3122 and plasmid-GPPS_(Ag)-TPS were co-transformed into YH40.

Strains containing different constructs were cultured in a M9 medium containing 20 g/L of an amino acid mixture, which included equal molar quantities of each amino acid, to determine the terpene yield. Construct 1 produced the highest terpene concentration, up to 166.6 mg/L, including 89.6 mg/L of monoterpene and 76 mg/L sesquiterpene (44 mg/L of chamigrene); and a terpene concentration was detected with construct 3 (49 mg/L of total terpene) and construct 2 (31 mg/L of total terpene) (FIG. 25A).

Compared to construct 1 that produced higher monoterpene than sesquiterpene, constructs 2 and 3 produced 3.8 and 2.7 fold higher concentrations of sesquiterpene than monoterpene, respectively. Interestingly, constructs 2 and 3 produced a lower amount of chamigrene than construct 1, but the percentage of chamigrene in sesquiterpene from construct 1 was the least (58%), compared to 85% and 94% from construct 2 and construct 3, respectively.

To further elucidate metabolic flux flow with the different constructs, various intermediate pathway metabolites were extracted and analyzed by the LC-MS. The results were consistent with the terpene concentrations obtained from the different regulation strategies. Only mevalonate accumulation was detected among all the intermediate metabolites, and the concentrations were inversely related to the terpene yield. As seen in FIG. 25B, construct 1 accumulated the least amount of mevalonate at 3.79 μM/g cell, followed by construct 3 (4.25 μM/g cell), and construct 2 (5.18 μM/g cell), respectively. The lower concentration of mevalonate suggests that higher metabolic flux was more effectively diverted to product formation using construct 1, as compared to the other two regulation strategies provided by constructs 2 and 3. Additionally, mevalonate was identified as the most likely toxic intermediate metabolite to cell growth (see, e.g., Martin V J et al., “Engineering a mevalonate pathway in Escherichia coli for production of terpenoids,” Nat. Biotechnol. 2003; 21(7):796-802; and Pitera D J et al., Metab. Eng. 2007; 9(2):193-207). The consumption of mevalonate most likely minimized toxicity, further improving the terpene production.

Optimization of Amino Acid Degradation and Terpene Synthesis

Various conditions were altered to optimize terpene synthesis. Exemplary conditions include use of a transcription inducer, as well varying concentrations of the inducer; variation of the amino acid concentration in the fermentation broth; and/or variation of the fermentation temperature. Additional details follow.

The final terpene concentration is not only regulated by the transcriptional and translational rates but also by the thermodynamics of the pathway enzymes. IPTG was used as a common inducer for transcription of all of the terpene biosynthesis pathway genes in this work. The proper induction strength will optimize the transcriptional rate of pathway genes, which consequently results in the optimal enzyme concentrations that produce the maximum concentration of the target terpene compounds. From the experimental results, 0.25 mM of IPTG yielded the highest total terpene concentration, up to 140 mg/L, including 64 mg/L monoterpene and 75 mg/L of sesquiterpene, as shown in FIG. 26A. The strain induced at 0.5 mM of IPTG produced 91 mg/L of total terpene, which was about 36% less than that produced at 0.25 mM IPTG. Similar concentrations of total terpene were detected when the strains were induced at 1 mM and 1.5 mM, which were ˜53% of the total terpene produced when induced by 0.25 mM of IPTG.

Substrate inhibition is believed to be a significant factor affecting product yield during fermentation (see, e.g., Wu W et al., “A general inhibition kinetics model for ethanol production using a novel carbon source: sodium gluconate,” Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2013; 36(11):1631-40). The amino acid substrate mixture contained charged amino acids (Arg, Lys, Asp, and Glu) and other polar amino acids. A high concentration of amino acids in the fermentation medium may increase the ionic strength of the medium, therevy resulting in the low cell growth. Therefore, the effects of amino acid concentration on terpene yield were also investigated in the study.

The results showed that the terpene yield increased with the elevation of the amino acid concentration in the medium, as shown in FIG. 26B. At 20 g/L of amino acids, the strain produced the highest terpene titer, up to 166.6 mg/L of total terpene while only 18 mg/L of total terpene was produced when the medium contained 5 g/L of amino acids. Contrarily, the ratio of sesquiterpene to monoterpene was the highest in the culture on 5 g/L of amino acids, up to a factor of −5. This ratio decreased with increasing amino acid concentrations in the medium. At 20 g/L of amino acid, the strain produced more monoterpene than sesquiterpene. Accordingly, shifts in the terpene profile can be modified by changing the concentration of amino acids in the medium.

The concentration of produced terpenes can be dependent on the reaction rate, which in turn can be determined by properties of various pathway enzymes, their concentrations, and the reaction temperature. According to the Arrhenius equation, the chemical reaction rate increases with increases in temperature. However, in terms of the enzymatic reaction, there exists an optimal reaction temperature at which the enzyme has maximal catalytic ability. Based on the experimental results, terpene concentrations (up to 71 mg/L) reached the highest value when the strain was induced at 25° C. (FIG. 26C). When the induction temperature rose to 30° C. and 37° C., the strain produced only 28% (20 mg/L) and 21% (15 mg/L) of the terpene yielded at 25° C. The strain produced only very small quantities of terpene at 42° C.

Bioconversion of Algal Protein for Terpene Production

It is commonly speculated that in fuels process including an algae, the algal carbohydrate can be bio-converted into ethanol, but algal proteins can be used in animal feeds or other non-fuel applications (see, e.g., Li K et al., Int'l J. Energy Res. 2014; 38(8):965-77; Moody J W et al., “Global evaluation of biofuel potential from microalgae,” Proc. Nat'l Acad. Sci. USA 2014; 111(23):8691-6; Razeghifard R, Photosynth. Res. 2013; 117(1-3):207-19; and Weaver L J et al., “A kinetic-based approach to understanding heterologous mevalonate pathway function in E. coli,” Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2015; 112(1):111-9).

To improve technoeconomic feasibility of using algae as a fuel source, algal biofuel processing options can be improved by adding high value-added petroleum replacements and fuel compounds that are compatible with current fuel engine infrastructure. With an engineered E. coli strain (YH40-TPS), we successfully demonstrated bioconversion of algal proteins into terpene compounds as a next generation fuel concept (see FIG. 27A-27B). Chamigrene synthase (CS) was chosen as a representative TPS due to its relatively simple profile. The terpene biosynthetic pathway was constructed in an E. coli strain YH40, which was randomly mutated to boost amino acid consumption as solo carbon source to support its growth.

As seen in FIG. 27A, terpene yield reached 26 mg/L of total terpene, including 2.4 mg/L of monoterpene, 23.4 mg/L of sesquiterpene, as well as 12.6 mg/L of chamigrene. The low terpene yields indicated the relatively inefficient bioconversion of algal biomass. In fact, strain YH40-CS only used approximately half of the algal amino acids in the medium while algal carbohydrate consumption was minimal (3.8% of total carbohydrate). Increased yield of terpenoid compounds may be obtained, e.g., by including an organism that preferentially consumes carbohydrates.

Additionally, the benthic algae polyculture of HydroMentia contained up to 70% ash, which yielded high ion strength in the algal biomass hydrolysate that used as the fermentation medium. This high ion strength in the culture media may be another major reason responsible for low yield of terpenes. Optionally strategies for optimizing terpene synthesis could be pretreating the algal biomass, and then separation the solid ash component prior to fermentation with terpene synthase(s). Composition analysis indicated that carbohydrate and protein accounts for 74.2% of the mixed benthic biomass ash free dry weight (HydroMentia, Inc). Based on these data, the strain YH40-TPS produced 3.3 mg terpene/g algae (0.33%), as shown in FIG. 27B, which is comparable to the current state-of-art essential oil extraction yields from plant tissues that are ranged between 0.1% to 0.8% of plant tissue biomass (see, e.g., Gong H Y et a., “Analysis of essential oils of Origanum vulgare from six production areas of China and Pakistan,” Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia [Braz. J. Pharmacognosy] 2014; 24(1):25-32; and Moncada J et al., “Techno-economic and environmental assessment of essential oil extraction from Oregano (Origanum vulgare) and Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) in Colombia,” J. Cleaner Production 2016; 112(1):172-81).

Discussion

First generation biofuels encountered severe criticism because the feedstocks were common food crops, which raised concerns about global food security, especially with regards to the most vulnerable regions of the global economy. As recently reviewed (see, e.g., Yen H W et al., “Microalgae-based biorefinery-from biofuels to natural products,” Bioresour. Technol. 2013; 135:166-74), microalgae-based biofuels have been recognized as an important feedstock for second generation biofuels in addition to lignocellulosic biomass.

Techno-economic analysis suggests that a viable algal biofuel process will require high algae biomass productivity, inexpensive harvesting and biomass pretreatment methods, as well as co-production of high value products in addition to conventional fuel compounds such as ethanol and diesel. Leveraging the development of high value products, such as terpenes, with the comprehensive use of algae biomass through heterotrophic fermentation has several advantages in terms of process cost reduction. Terpenes as hydrocarbon or hydrocarbon-like compounds have only recently been considered as a next generation fuel (see, e.g., Griffin M A et al., “Volatile organic compound production by organisms in the genus Ascocoryne and a re-evaluation of myco-diesel production by NRRL 50072,” Microbiology 2010; 156(Pt 12):3814-29; Lane J, “9 advanced molecules that could revolutionize jet and missile fuel,” Biofuels Digest, Jun. 18, 2014 (4 pp.), available at http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2014/06/18/9-advanced-molecules-that-could-revolutionize-jet-and-missile-fuel/ (last accessed Feb. 15, 2016); Strobel G, “The story of mycodiesel,” Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2014; 19:52-8; and Strobel G A et al., “The production of myco-diesel hydrocarbons and their derivatives by the endophytic fungus Gliocladium roseum (NRRL 50072),” Microbiology 2008; 154(Pt 11):3319-28 (erratum in Microbiology 2010; 156(Pt 12):3830-3). Via photosynthetic pathways, algae microorganisms are able to produce large amount of proteins (e.g., about 40-60%), carbohydrates (e.g., about 25-40%), and lipids (e.g., about 10-20%) under non-stressed conditions. Therefore, efficient use of algae biomass for conversion to fuels requires processes to convert both of the major algal biochemical pools (i.e., proteins and carbohydrates) to high energy density and low oxygen liquid fuels, thereby enabling viable algal biofuel process and generating effective petroleum replacements.

For terpene production, biosynthesis can be achieved either through the mevalonate or DXP pathways, for which the metabolic flux is diverted from acetyl-CoA and pyruvate, respectively, to the final products (see, e.g., Gräwert T et al., “Biochemistry of the non-mevalonate isoprenoid pathway,” Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2011; 68(23):3797-814; Illarionova V et al., “Nonmevalonate terpene biosynthesis enzymes as antiinfective drug targets: substrate synthesis and high-throughput screening methods,” J. Org. Chem. 2006; 71(23):8824-34; Kim S W et al., “Metabolic engineering of the nonmevalonate isopentenyl diphosphate synthesis pathway in Escherichia coli enhances lycopene production,” Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2001; 72(4):408-15; Lee T S et al., “Metabolic engineering of mevalonate pathway,” 239th ACS National Meeting & Exposition, held on 21-25 Mar. 2010 in San Francisco, Calif. (abstract, 1 p.); and Martin V J et al., Nat. Biotechnol. 2003; 21(7):796-802).

Correspondingly, both carbohydrate and amino acid assimilation can yield pyruvate and acetyl-CoA as common building blocks in the central metabolism although the catabolism of amino acids has more diverse pathways than that of glucose. These facts enable terpene production through comprehensive utilization of algal carbohydrates and proteins through a strain engineering approach. Algal carbohydrate has been reported to be converted into pinene in previous study (see, e.g., Scullin C et al., “Optimization of renewable pinene production from the conversion of macroalgae Saccharina latissimi,” Bioresour. Technol. 2015; 184:415-20), while algal protein are barely studied for high value-added terpene compound production. Here, we firstly demonstrated the feasibility of bioconversion of protein into various terpene compounds using a synthetic amino acid mixture as solo carbon source in the culture. The algal proteins from natural benthic algal polyculture (ATS™ biomass provided by Hydromentia, Inc., Ocala, Fla.) was further used as real substrate in the culture and was effectively converted to the sesquiterpene chamigrene as well as several monoterpene compounds. The highest titer of total terpene was achieved up to 165 mg/L from 20 g/L of an amino acid mixture, including 90 mg/L of monoterpene and 76 mg/L of sesquiterpene (FIG. 26B). However, the terpene yield from algal protein was dramatically reduced to 26 mg/L, corresponding to 3.3 mg terpene/g algae.

Compared to the recent reported ˜40 mg/L of sabinene produced from glycerol in shaker flasks (see, e.g., Zhang H et al., “Microbial production of sabinene-a new terpene-based precursor of advanced biofuel,” Microb. Cell Fact. 2014; 13:Art. No. 20 (10 pp.)), the terpene titer from algal protein was lower. Nonetheless, the constructs herein can be employ different amino acid (e.g., 13 amino acids), and carbon sources can be selected to be those including high protein concentrations or those separated to provide a high-protein fraction. In addition, employing microbial fermentation of algae biomass cultivated from waste-water as opposed to conventional terpene production methods, e.g., mechanical and solvent-based extraction of agricultural products, avoided several energetically and environmentally-intensive unit operations, especially including avoidance of arable land that can sustain other crops (e.g., edible crops), as well as minimal use of water, fertilizer, and solvents.

In terms of the potential for terpene yield improvement, terpene biosynthesis can be limited by transcriptional and translational regulation, as well as the enzyme kinetics or reaction thermodynamics. To optimize the expression of proteins in the mevalonate pathway and generate the optimal metabolic flux to the desired final products, all the pathway genes were expressed under the control of different promoter combinations with different transcriptional and translational regulations. In construct 1, the first three enzymes of MEV pathway (AtoB, HMGS, and HMGR) were regulated under a medium strength promoter LacUV5 to achieve the medium level of mevalonate accumulation, which was able to minimize the toxicity of mevalonate to cell growth. In contrast, the last four enzymes (MK, PMK, PMD, and IDI) were expressed under a strong promoter Ptrc to divert maximal flux to the IPP and DMAPP, as well as to efficiently consume the toxic intermediate metabolite mevalonate (see, e.g., Anthony J R et al., Metab. Eng. 2009; 11(1):β-9; Ma S M et al., “Optimization of a heterologous mevalonate pathway through the use of variant HMG-CoA reductases,” Metab. Eng. 2011; 13(5):588-97; Pitera D J et al., Metab. Eng. 2007; 9(2):193-207; and Weaver L J et al., Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2015; 112(1):111-9). In addition, to drive the resulting metabolic flux to the final terpene products, both downstream enzymes GPPS_(Ag) and chamigrene synthase were over-expressed under strong promoters T7 and Ptrc, respectively.

From our shaker flask experiments, the strain containing construct 1 yielded ˜166.6 mg/L total terpene, including 89.6 mg/L monoterpene and 76 mg/L sesquiterpene with chamigrene as the major product. Compared to construct 1, both construct 2 and construct 3 displayed less transcriptional and translational efficiency of downstream enzymes including GPPS_(Ag) and chamigrene synthase, indicated by higher mevalonate levels in vivo which diminished the cell growth as well as the final terpene yields.

IPTG was employed as a common inducer for the LacUV5, T7, and Ptrc promoters to initiate protein expression and subsequent catalysis of the metabolic reactions to terpene generation. The concentration of the IPTG was optimized for maximal terpene production. At low concentrations of IPTG (0.25 mM), the strain yielded the highest terpene concentration, up to 140 mg/L. Terpene yield decreased with elevation of the IPTG concentrations. The decreased terpene yield at higher induction levels in this study is likely due to the different induction efficiencies of promoters LacUV5, T7, and Ptrc, which may result in induction competition among the different promoters, which can further lead to imbalance of the metabolic flux, thereby resulting in reduced product yield (see, e.g., Anderson J C et al., “BglBricks: A flexible standard for biological part assembly,” J. Biol. Eng. 2010; 20; 4(1):1 (12 pp.); and Lee T S et al., “BglBrick vectors and datasheets: A synthetic biology platform for gene expression.” J. Biol. Eng. 2011; 5:Art. No. 12 (14 pp.)). Additionally, at high concentrations IPTG can be toxic to cell growth, which could further compromised the terpene formation.

The terpene yield was also subjected to changes in environmental fermentation factors, such as temperature and substrate concentration. The YH40-TPS strain produced higher terpene yield at lower temperature and produced negligible terpene quantities at 42° C. Without wishing to be limited by mechanism, this may have occurred as lower temperatures can initiate an optimal translation rate of terpene pathway enzymes to achieve optimal fully functional pathway enzymes concentrations in vivo, which catalyzed the maximum metabolic flux to the terpene formation (see, e.g., Rosano G L et al., “Recombinant protein expression in Escherichia coli: advances and challenges,” Front. Microbiol. 2014; 5:Art. No. 172 (17 pp.)).

Terpene yield may also be subject to the effect of substrate inhibition during the fermentation. In this experiment, the terpene yields on amino acid concentrations above 20 g/L were not investigated due to the limited solubility of amino acids, especially those with aromatic side chains. Within the concentration range of 5-20 g/L of amino acids, the terpene yield increased with higher amino acid concentrations. At the low concentration of amino acids, the strain utilized the majority of amino acids for cell growth and maintenance instead of terpene production.

Regarding the multiple terpene products yielded from each strain, all six selected TSPs are type I terpene cyclase, which contained two highly conserved motifs: the aspartate rich motif (DDXXD) and the NSE triad (ND(L/I/V)XSXXXE) (see, e.g., Miller D J et al., “Sesquiterpene synthases: passive catalysts or active players?,” Nat. Prod. Rep. 2012; 29(1):60-71; and Oldfield E et al., “Terpene biosynthesis: modularity rules,” Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2012; 51(5):1124-37). These TSPs are involved in binding of substrate precursors (e.g., GPP and FPP) and catalyzing terpene formation. Without wishing to be limited by mechanism, monoterpene formation generally starts from the ionization of geranyl diphosphate to form geranyl cation followed by isomerization to several different carbocations. The resulting carbocations undergo a range of cyclization, hydride shifts, methyl shifts, and conformation rearrangements before the reaction is quenched by deprotonation or water capture (see, e.g., Croteau R et al., “[44] Monoterpene and sesquiterpene cyclases,” Methods in Enzymology 1985; 110:383-405; Degenhardt J et al., “Monoterpene and sesquiterpene synthases and the origin of terpene skeletal diversity in plants,” Phytochemistry 2009; 70(15-16):1621-37; and Oldfield E et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2012; 51(5):1124-37).

Without wishing to be limited by mechanism, sesquiterpene formation can be similar to monoterpene, but with higher complexity due to the higher complexation state of FPP than that of GPP, which involves multiple isomerations of carbocations and cyclization reactions. The different intermediate carbocations can undergo different cyclization reactions, hydride or methyl shifts, and conformation rearrangements, which is most likely the reason of multiple products formation from each terpene synthase. Additionally, the product profile is not only determined by the catalyzing properties of terpene synthase but also the reaction environment since the reaction is also terminated by deprotonation or water capture. The YH40-TPS strains were grown on the M9 medium containing a mixture of amino acids which has higher ion strength and lower pH than that of EZ-rich medium, which may contribute to different terpene profiles even when the same TSP is employed but with different growth media.

Conclusion

Algae-based biofuels production has primarily focused on biodiesel production through transesterification of algal lipids. Under robust algal biomass accumulation conditions, carbohydrate and proteins typically include up to ˜80% of the ash-free dry weight of algae biomass. Therefore, a comprehensive process for bioconversion of algal carbohydrates and proteins to high energy density fuels and value-added bioproducts should significantly improve the algal fuel process feasibility. In this study, we engineered the E. coli strain harboring the terpene biosynthesis pathway and firstly demonstrated the feasibility of bioconversion of algal proteins to terpenes, which are attractive candidates for high energy density aviation fuels and other intermediate to high value bio-based chemicals applications. The terpene yield achieved was 3.3 mg/g algae, which is comparable to the current essential oil extraction yield from plant tissues. The results indicate high potential for terpene product from renewable algae biomass and offer a versatile path forward for the production of fuels and active bioproducts from algae.

Example 3: One-Pot Bioconversion of Algae Biomass into Terpenes for Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts

Under robust algae growth conditions, algal carbohydrates and proteins typically comprise up to ˜80% of the ash-free dry weight of microalgae biomass. Therefore, production of algal biofuel through comprehensive use of all algal components and the addition of high energy density fuel compounds with “fit for purpose” properties or high-value bioproducts can both diminish the process cost and improve the overall process feasibility. In this Example, we firstly demonstrated the concept of a “one-pot” bioconversion of algal carbohydrate and protein into value-added terpene compounds (e.g., as advanced biofuel and high value bioproducts), thereby improving the feasibility of developing an engineered microbial consortium. The consortium for caryophyllene production yielded the highest titer of total terpene, up to 507.4 mg/L, including 471 mg/L of sesquiterpene, 36.4 mg/L of monoterpene, and 124.4 mg/L of caryophyllene on algal hydrolysate from Nannochloropsis sp. Additionally, the consortium expressing chamigrene synthase produced 187 mg/L of total terpene, including 87 mg/L of monoterpene, 100 mg/L of sesquiterpene, and 62 mg/L of chamigrene using a hydrolysate from a benthic polyculture biomass as the carbon source. Compared to the yields of terpene extracted from plant tissue, both consortia increased the terpene yield about 3˜40 times.

Introduction

Rising demand for transportation fuels and the concerns with fossil fuel derived environmental pollution, as well as the green-house gas emission derived climate change, have resulted in the compelling need for alternative, sustainable energy sources (see, e.g., Lynd L R et al., “Consolidated bioprocessing of cellulosic biomass: an update,” Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2005; 16(5):577-83). Algae-based biofuels have been considered as a promising alternative to fossil fuels (see, e.g., Moody J W et al., “Global evaluation of biofuel potential from microalgae,” Proc. Nat'l Acad. Sci. USA 2014; 111(23):8691-6; Razeghifard R, “Algal biofuels,” Photosynth. Res. 2013; 117(1-3):207-19; and Luque R, “Algal biofuels: the eternal promise?,” Energy Environ. Sci. 2010; 3:254-7).

Current state-of-the-art of algal biofuel technologies have primarily focused on biodiesel production through prompting high algal lipid yields under the nutrient stress conditions. There has been less emphasis on using algae-based carbohydrates and proteins as carbon sources for the fermentative production of liquid fuel compounds or other high-value bioproducts (see, e.g., El-Mashad H M, “Biomethane and ethanol production potential of Spirulina platensis algae and enzymatically saccharified switchgrass,” Biochem. Eng. J. 2015; 93:119-27; Babujanarthanama R et al., “Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of dilute acid pretreated red algae (Gelidiella acerosa) for bioethanol production,” Energy Sourc. A 2014; 36(12):1305-14; and Huo Y X et al., “Conversion of proteins into biofuels by engineering nitrogen flux,” Nat. Biotechnol. 2011; 29(4):346-51). However, under robust algae growth conditions, algal carbohydrate and proteins typically comprise up to −80% of the ash-free dry weight of microalgae biomass (see, e.g., Wang H et al., “Growth and biochemical composition of filamentous microalgae Tribonema sp. as potential biofuel feedstock,” Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2014; 37(12):2607-13; and Chen C Y et al., “Microalgae-based carbohydrates for biofuel production,” Biochem. Eng. J. 2013; 78:1-10). Therefore, production of algal biofuel through comprehensive use of all algae biochemical components can both diminish processing cost and improve overall process feasibility.

Terpenes are a group of natural products with over 55,000 structurally similar chemical compounds. Compared to biodiesel and other short- and medium-chain alcohols, these molecules contain near zero oxygen content, have various biological functionalities (see, e.g., Zhang Z et al., “Synergistic antitumor effect of α-pinene and β-pinene with paclitaxel against non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC),” Drug Res. (Stuttg.) 2015; 65(4):214-8; Rufino A T et al., “Evaluation of the anti-inflammatory, anti-catabolic and pro-anabolic effects of E-caryophyllene, myrcene and limonene in a cell model of osteoarthritis,” Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2015; 750:141-50; Kovač J et al., “Antibiotic resistance modulation and modes of action of (−)-α-pinene in Campylobacter jejuni,” PLoS One 2015; 10(4):e0122871 (14 pp.); Han L et al., “Trans-caryophyllene suppresses tumor necrosis factor (TNFα)-induced inflammation in human chondrocytes,” Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2014; 239(6):1061-6; and Guo K et al., “Trans-caryophyllene suppresses hypoxia-induced neuroinflammatory responses by inhibiting NF-κB activation in microglia,” J. Mol. Neurosci. 2014; 54(1):41-8) and have high energy density, making them particularly attractive candidates as “drop-in” fuel candidates for aviation fuels (see, e.g., Strobel G, “The story of mycodiesel,” Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2014; 19:52-8; Riyaz-Ul-Hassan S et al., “An endophytic Nodulisporium sp. from Central America producing volatile organic compounds with both biological and fuel potential,” J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013; 23(1):29-35; Gladden J M et al., “Tailoring next-generation biofuels and their combustion in next-generation engines,” Sandia Report No. SAND2013-10094, 2013 (100 pp.); Strobel G et al., “An endophytic/pathogenic Phoma sp. from creosote bush producing biologically active volatile compounds having fuel potential,” FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2011; 320(2):87-94; Strobel G A et al., “The production of myco-diesel hydrocarbons and their derivatives by the endophytic fungus Gliocladium roseum (NRRL 50072),” Microbiology 2008; 154(Pt 11):3319-28 (erratum in Microbiology 2010; 156(Pt 12):3830-3); and Griffin M A et al., “Volatile organic compound production by organisms in the genus Ascocoryne and a re-evaluation of myco-diesel production by NRRL 50072,” Microbiology 2010; 156(Pt 12):3814-29). In this Example, we demonstrate the concept of “one-pot” bioconversion of algal carbohydrates and proteins into terpenes, e.g., for use as advanced biofuel compounds and high value bioproducts.

Results and Discussion

Caryophyllene and chamigrene, natural bicyclic sesquiterpene (C₁₅) compounds, are common components present in the essential oils from various plants (see, e.g., Malingré T et al., “The essential oil of Cannabis sativa,” Planta Med. 1975; 28(1):56-61; Kpadonou Kpoviessi B G et al., “Chemical variation of essential oil constituents of Ocimum gratissimum L. from Benin, and impact on antimicrobial properties and toxicity against Artemia salina leach,” Chem. Biodivers. 2012; 9(1):139-50; Rodrigues F F et al., “Chemical composition, antibacterial and antifungal activities of essential oil from Cordia verbenacea DC leaves,” Pharmacognosy Res. 2012; 4(3):161-5; and Meccia G et al., “Chemical composition and antibacterial activity of the essential oil of Cordia verbenacea from the Venezuelan Andes,” Nat. Prod. Commun. 2009; 4(8):1119-22).

A recent study suggested that the blending of hydrogenated sesquiterpanes (in particular carophyllanes), which have a moderate cetane number and only moderately high viscosity, with synthetic branched paraffins to raise cetane and reduce viscosity, could produce biosynthetic fuels that meet applicable jet fuel and diesel specifications (see, e.g., Harvey B G et al., “High-density renewable diesel and jet fuels prepared from multicyclic sesquiterpanes and a 1-hexene-derived synthetic paraffinic kerosene,” Energy Fuels 2015; 29(4):2431-6). Therefore, caryophyllene and its isomers have been deemed to be among the top three most promising candidates for jet fuel with high energy density (see, e.g., Nakano C et al., “Identification of the first bacterial monoterpene cyclase, a 1,8-cineole synthase, that catalyzes the direct conversion of geranyl diphosphate,” Chembiochem 2011; 12(13):1988-91). As described herein, we discovered and functionally characterized caryophyllene and chamigrene synthases from endophytes (see, e.g., Wu W et al., “Rapid discovery and functional characterization of terpene synthases from four endophytic Xylariaceae,” PLoS One 2016; 11(2):e0146983 (19 pp.)). Furthermore, we demonstrated the feasibility of bioconversion of algal protein into terpene through terpene biosynthesis reconstruction into mutant E. coli YH40 strain.

Based on the previous studies, we developed a synthetic microbial consortium and investigated the production of caryophyllene, chamigrene, and other terpene products in one-pot fermentation using algal hydrolysate of microalgae monocultures from strain Nannochloropsis sp. as well as natural benthic algal assemblages cultivated from wastewater. To achieve this, the terpene biosynthesis pathway was reconstructed into E. coli YH40 strain (see, e.g., Huo Y X et al., Nat. Biotechnol. 2011; 29(4):346-51), designated for the conversion of algal protein into caryophyllene or chamigrene, and into E. coli DH1 strain, designated for the conversion of algal carbohydrate into caryophyllene or chamigrene, respectively (FIG. 34A).

Caryophyllene and chamigrene yields were investigated under three different combinations of inoculum YH40-CI4A-CS/DH1-CI4A-CS at ratios of 2:1 (consortia R2), 1:1 (consortia R1), and 0.5:1 (consortia R0.5), as well as the single strainsYH40-CI4A-CS or DH1-CI4A-CS alone. As shown FIG. 34B, when co-culture of the two strains containing caryophyllene synthases were grown on algal hydrolysate from Nannochloropsis sp. at an inoculum ratio 1:1 (consortia R1), the consortia produced the highest titer of total terpene, up to 507.4 mg/L, including 471 mg/L of sesquiterpene, 36.4 mg/L of monoterpene, and 124.4 mg/L of caryophyllene.

Correspondingly, the consortia R1 consumed the highest amount of algal carbohydrates and proteins, which accounted for 48.2% of total algal carbohydrates and 36% of total algal proteins in the media (FIG. 34C). Compared to the consortia R1, the consortia R2 and R0.5 consumed a significantly lower fraction of the total algal biomass, with correspondingly lower concentrations of terpenes.

The strain YH40-CI4A-CS alone produced the least amount of total terpene (274.7 mg/L), sesquiterpene (232.1 mg/L), and caryophyllene (14.4 mg/L). In contrast, DH1-CI4A-CS yielded 30% higher sesquiterpene and total terpene than strain YH40-CI4A-CS, as well as four times higher titer of caryophyllene (75.2 mg/L). Compositional analysis of the Nannochloropsis sp. biomass indicated that the biomass was 20% carbohydrates and 58% protein. Based on these data, the highest terpene yield that was achieved corresponded to ˜42 mg total terpene/g algae from consortia R0.5 with 37.4 mg sesquiterpene/g algae and 6.6 mg caryophyllene/g algae, as shown in FIG. 34D.

For co-culture of the two engineered strains containing chamigrene on the hydrolysate of benthic algal assemblages, the experimental results showed that the terpene yield reached 187 mg/L of total terpene at the 2:1 ratio (YH40-CI4A-CPS/DH1-CI4A-CPS), including 87 mg/L of monoterpene and 100 mg/L of sesquiterpene, and chamigrene was the major product accumulated up to 62 mg/L. The synthetic microbial consortia produced similar total terpene at the 1:1 and 0.5:1 ratios of YH40-CI4A-CPS/DH1-CI4A-CPS, which were ˜150 mg/L of total terpene. The microbial consortium at ratio 1 yielded the highest concentration of sesquiterpene (113 mg/L) as well as chamigrene (80 mg/L) among three consortia, while the monoterpene yield was the lowest (34.5 mg/L).

The YH40-TS and DH1-TS strains alone produced only 26 and 43 mg/L of total terpene, respectively, indicating relatively inefficient bioconversion of algal biomass. Compared to a single bioconversion strain, the synthetic microbial consortia produced 2.5-6.2 times higher total terpene concentration, suggesting that both algal carbohydrate and protein can be more effectively converted in the single-pot process.

In terms of algal carbohydrate and amino acid consumption, none of the synthetic consortia were able to completely consume the algal carbohydrates and amino acids. The 2:1 consortium ratio utilized the highest amount of algal biomass, corresponding to 36.8% of total carbohydrates and 31.3% of algal amino acids. The other two consortia ratios consumed similar amount of the total carbohydrates and algal amino acids, which were 10-15% less than the 2:1 consortium. Strain YH40-CI4A-CPS used approximately half of the algal amino acids in the medium but algal carbohydrate consumption was minimal (3.8% of total carbohydrate). Strain DH1-TS consumed both algal carbohydrates (37.8% of total carbohydrate) and amino acids (23.3% of algal amino acids) in the medium.

Compositional analysis indicated that carbohydrate and protein accounts for 74.2% of the mixed benthic biomass ash free dry weight (HydroMentia, Inc.). Based on these data, the 2:1 consortium ratio produced the highest terpene yield at 30.5 mg terpene/g algae while the 1:1 and 1:2 consortium ratios yielded 27.0 and 28.5 mg terpene/g algae, respectively. The strain YH40-CI4A-CPS only produced 3.3 mg terpene/g algae, which was lower than 8.7 mg terpene/g algae yielded by strain DH1-CI4A-CPS, as shown in FIG. 35C.

Compared to total terpene yield produced from the benthic polyculture biomass in our previous study, the consortium employing Nannochloropsis sp. monoculture produced more than 2-fold higher titer of total terpene.

In the consortium used for bioconversion of the benthic polyculture biomass, the chamigrene synthase (JGI protein ID 322581) gene was expressed as the last enzyme in the terpene biosynthesis pathway. Compared to the multiple sesquiterpene produced by caryophyllene synthase in this study, chamigrene synthase only produces a single sesquiterpene (chamigrene) with a limited number of monoterpenes, which was likely a reason for the higher yield of total terpene from Nannochloropsis sp.

Furthermore, the ash content of the benthic polyculture was more than 50% of total biomass, compared to 5.9% of Nannochloropsis sp. The higher ash content of the benthic polyculture biomass resulted in higher ionic strength in the final algal hydrolysates (fermentation medium), which retarded the cell growth and compromised the terpene yield.

Additionally, according to the techno-economic analysis of current state-of-the-art of essential oil production, the extraction yield of essential oil ranged from 0.1% to 1% of plant tissue, corresponding to 1 mg-10 mg essential oil/g plant tissue (see, e.g., Moncada J et al., “Techno-economic and environmental assessment of essential oil extraction from Oregano (Origanum vulgare) and Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) in Colombia,” J. Cleaner Prod. 2016; 112(1):172-81; and Gong H Y et al., “Analysis of essential oils of Origanum vulgare from six production areas of China and Pakistan,” Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia [Braz. J. Pharmacognosy] 2014; 24(1):25-32) based on the relatively low concentration of essential oils in plant tissue (see, e.g., Iijima Y et al., “The biochemical and molecular basis for the divergent patterns in the biosynthesis of terpenes and phenylpropenes in the peltate glands of three cultivars of basil,” Plant Physiol. 2004; 136(3):3724-36). Compared to the extraction yield of essential oil from plant tissue, the engineered strains in this study increased the terpene yield about 3-40 times, which makes it a promising alternative pathway for terpene production.

Strains and Plasmids

The E. coli strain DH1 was obtained from Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI). The mutant E. coli strain YH40 (BW25113/F′ [traD36, proAB+, lacI^(q) ZΔM15] ΔglnAΔgdhAΔluxSΔlsrA) was generously provided by Professor James C. Liao from University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Plasmid pBbE1a-MEVup containing the terpene biosynthesis pathway, as well as plasmids pBbE1a-GPPS and pBbE7k-TS were constructed as described in prior Examples. Plasmids containing the whole terpene biosynthesis pathway were co-transformed into strains DH1 and YH40, respectively.

Terpene Production from a Microbial Consortium on Algal Hydrolysates

Algal biomass samples from both sources were pretreated according to protocols from the National Renewable Energy Laboratories and hydrolyzed with 2 mg/mL Pronase® (Promega Corp., Madison, Wis.) following the manufacturer's protocol. Pretreated and hydrolyzed algal biomass was sterilized through filtration.

E. coli strains DH1 and YH40 each containing the terpene biosynthesis pathway were cultured into 15 ml of LB medium as described in the previous study. Overnight cultures were centrifuged and the cell pellets were re-suspended into 4 ml of pretreated algal hydrolysate. Various ratios (2:1, 1:1, and 1:2) of engineered YH40 to DH1 were inoculated into the algal hydrolysate at a final concentration of 10% v/v. Cultures were incubated at 37° C., 220 rpm and induced with 1 mM IPTG once the OD reached 0.8. Flasks were cap-sealed and cultured for another 72 hours at 25° C., 180 rpm for terpene production.

Analytical samples were taken at the initial and end point of fermentation. The concentrations of total carbohydrate and amino acids were determined according to the established colorimetric protocols. The terpene profile and concentration was determined as described in the previous study (see, e.g., Gladden J M et al., “Tailoring next-generation biofuels and their combustion in next-generation engines,” Sandia Report No. SAND2013-10094, 2013 (100 pp.); and Wu W et al., “Rapid discovery and functional characterization of terpene synthases from four endophytic Xylariaceae,” PLoS One 2016; 11(2):e0146983 (19 pp.)). Each run was performed in triplicate. The data presented in the figures were the mean values and the errors were calculated as the standard deviation of the triplicates.

Conclusion

Algae-based biofuels production has primarily focused on biodiesel production through transesterification of algal lipids. Under robust algal biomass accumulation conditions, carbohydrate and proteins typically comprise up to ˜80% of the ash-free dry weight of algae biomass. Therefore, a comprehensive process for bioconversion of algal carbohydrates and proteins to high energy density fuels and value-added bioproducts should significantly improve the algal fuel process feasibility.

Here, we demonstrated simultaneous bioconversion of algal carbohydrates and proteins to terpenes which are attractive candidates for high energy density aviation fuels and other intermediate to high value bio-based chemicals applications. Using an engineered microbial consortium, greater than 30% of the carbohydrates and proteins from both a wastewater-based mixed algal feedstock and monoculture of strain Nannochloropsis sp. were converted to terpenes, including both monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes. This microbial consortium concept for comprehensive utilization of algal biomass offers a versatile path forward for the production of fuels and active bioproducts from algae.

OTHER EMBODIMENTS

All publications, patents, and patent applications, including U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/132,093, filed Mar. 12, 2015, mentioned in this specification are incorporated herein by reference to the same extent as if each independent publication or patent application was specifically and individually indicated to be incorporated by reference.

While the invention has been described in connection with specific embodiments thereof, it will be understood that it is capable of further modifications and this application is intended to cover any variations, uses, or adaptations of the invention following, in general, the principles of the invention and including such departures from the present disclosure that come within known or customary practice within the art to which the invention pertains and may be applied to the essential features hereinbefore set forth, and follows in the scope of the claims.

Other embodiments are within the claims. 

The invention claimed is:
 1. An isolated, genetically engineered organism comprising: an exogenous terpenoid precursor, an exogenous enzyme configured to synthesize a terpenoid precursor, or a nucleic acid encoding the exogenous enzyme; and an exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase or a nucleic acid encoding the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase, wherein the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase is selected from the group consisting of a pinene synthase, a guaiene synthase, a pinene and guaiene synthase, a caryophyllene synthase, a chamigrene synthase, a chamigrene and pinene synthase, a gurjunene synthase, a gurjunene and pinene synthase, a gumunene synthase, a selinene synthase, and an isoledene synthase, or a bifunctional synthase of any of these, wherein the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase comprises a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to any one of the following SEQ ID NOs or wherein the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase comprises a nucleic acid sequence encoding a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to any one of the following SEQ ID NOs: SEQ ID NO: 10, in which X at each position of SEQ ID NO:10 is an amino acid present at a position in one of SEQ ID NOs:11-14 when optimally aligned with SEQ ID NO:10; SEQ ID NO:20, in which X at each position of SEQ ID NO:20 is an amino acid present at a position in one of SEQ ID NOs:21-25 when optimally aligned with SEQ ID NO:20; SEQ ID NO:30, in which X at each position of SEQ ID NO:30 is an amino acid present at a position in one of SEQ ID NOs:31-34 when optimally aligned with SEQ ID NO:30; SEQ ID NO:40, in which X at each position of SEQ ID NO:40 is an amino acid present at a position in one of SEQ ID NOs:41-46 when optimally aligned with SEQ ID NO:40; SEQ ID NO:50, in which X at each position of SEQ ID NO:50 is an amino acid present at a position in one of SEQ ID NOs:51-54 when optimally aligned with SEQ ID NO:50; or SEQ ID NO:60, in which X at each position of SEQ ID NO:60 is an amino acid present at a position in one of SEQ ID NOs:61-64 when optimally aligned with SEQ ID NO:60.
 2. The organism of claim 1, wherein the exogenous terpenoid precursor is selected from the group consisting of mevalonate, dimethylallyl pyrophosphate, isopentenyl pyrophosphate, farnesyl pyrophosphate, geranyl pyrophosphate, and geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate, or a salt thereof.
 3. The organism of claim 1, thereby configured to produce one or more terpenoid compounds selected from the group consisting of a monoterpene, a sesquiterpene, and a diterpene.
 4. The organism of claim 1, wherein the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous enzyme and/or the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase is provided as a plasmid vector.
 5. The organism of claim 1, wherein the exogenous enzyme is selected from the group consisting of acetyl-CoA acetyltransferase, HMG-CoA synthase, HMG-CoA reductase, mevalonate kinase, phosphomevalonate kinase, mevalonate diphosphate decarboxylase, isoprenyl diphosphate isomerase, farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase, and geranyl pyrophosphate synthase.
 6. The organism of claim 5, wherein the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous enzyme comprises a nucleic acid sequence encoding the exogenous enzyme selected from the group consisting of acetyl-CoA acetyltransferase, HMG-CoA synthase, HMG-CoA reductase, mevalonate kinase, phosphomevalonate kinase, mevalonate diphosphate decarboxylase, isoprenyl diphosphate isomerase, farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase, and geranyl pyrophosphate synthase.
 7. An isolated, genetically engineered organism comprising: an exogenous terpenoid precursor, an exogenous enzyme configured to synthesize a terpenoid precursor, or a nucleic acid encoding the exogenous enzyme; and an exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase or a nucleic acid encoding the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase, wherein the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase is selected from the group consisting of a pinene synthase, a guaiene synthase, a pinene and guaiene synthase, a caryophyllene synthase, a chamigrene synthase, a chamigrene and pinene synthase, a gurjunene synthase, a gurjunene and pinene synthase, a gumunene synthase, a selinene synthase, and an isoledene synthase, or a bifunctional synthase of any of these, wherein the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase comprises a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to any one of SEQ ID NOs:11-14, 21-25, 31-34, 41-46, 51-54, and 61-64; or wherein the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase comprises a nucleic acid sequence encoding a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to any one of SEQ ID NOs:11-14, 21-25, 31-34, 41-46, 51-54, and 61-64.
 8. The organism of claim 7, wherein the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase comprises a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to any one of SEQ ID NOs:23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 34, 41, 42, 44, 45, 54, 62, and 64; or wherein the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase comprises a nucleic acid sequence encoding a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to any one of SEQ ID NOs:23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 34, 41, 42, 44, 45, 54, 62, and
 64. 9. The organism of claim 7, wherein the exogenous terpenoid precursor is selected from the group consisting of mevalonate, dimethylallyl pyrophosphate, isopentenyl pyrophosphate, farnesyl pyrophosphate, geranyl pyrophosphate, and geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate, or a salt thereof.
 10. The organism of claim 7, wherein the exogenous enzyme is selected from the group consisting of acetyl-CoA acetyltransferase, HMG-CoA synthase, HMG-CoA reductase, mevalonate kinase, phosphomevalonate kinase, mevalonate diphosphate decarboxylase, isoprenyl diphosphate isomerase, farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase, and geranyl pyrophosphate synthase.
 11. An isolated, genetically engineered organism comprising: an exogenous terpenoid precursor, an exogenous enzyme configured to synthesize a terpenoid precursor, or a nucleic acid encoding the exogenous enzyme; and an exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase or a nucleic acid encoding the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase, wherein the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase is selected from the group consisting of a pinene synthase, a guaiene synthase, a pinene and guaiene synthase, a caryophyllene synthase, a chamigrene synthase, a chamigrene and pinene synthase, a gurjunene synthase, a gurjunene and pinene synthase, a gumunene synthase, a selinene synthase, and an isoledene synthase, or a bifunctional synthase of any of these, wherein the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase comprises a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to XXZZXXZX (SEQ ID NO:71); wherein X is any amino acid; and wherein Z is selected from the group consisting of Asp, Glu, and His.
 12. The organism of claim 11, wherein the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase comprises a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to XXZDXXZX (SEQ ID NO:73); wherein X is selected from the group consisting of Ala, Ser, Thr, Val, Leu, Ile, Phe, Tyr, Trp, Glu, Asn, Gln, His, and Pro; and wherein Z is selected from the group consisting of Asp and Glu.
 13. The organism of claim 11, wherein the exogenous terpenoid precursor is selected from the group consisting of mevalonate, dimethylallyl pyrophosphate, isopentenyl pyrophosphate, farnesyl pyrophosphate, geranyl pyrophosphate, and geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate, or a salt thereof.
 14. The organism of claim 11, thereby configured to produce one or more terpenoid compounds selected from the group consisting of a monoterpene, a sesquiterpene, and a diterpene.
 15. The organism of claim 11, wherein the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous enzyme and/or the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase is provided as a plasmid vector.
 16. The organism of claim 11, wherein the exogenous enzyme is selected from the group consisting of acetyl-CoA acetyltransferase, HMG-CoA synthase, HMG-CoA reductase, mevalonate kinase, phosphomevalonate kinase, mevalonate diphosphate decarboxylase, isoprenyl diphosphate isomerase, farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase, and geranyl pyrophosphate synthase.
 17. An isolated, genetically engineered organism comprising: an exogenous terpenoid precursor, an exogenous enzyme configured to synthesize a terpenoid precursor, or a nucleic acid encoding the exogenous enzyme; and an exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase or a nucleic acid encoding the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase, wherein the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase is selected from the group consisting of a pinene synthase, a guaiene synthase, a pinene and guaiene synthase, a caryophyllene synthase, a chamigrene synthase, a chamigrene and pinene synthase, a gurjunene synthase, a gurjunene and pinene synthase, a gumunene synthase, a selinene synthase, and an isoledene synthase, or a bifunctional synthase of any of these, wherein the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase comprises a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to XZZXXXSXXZ ZXX (SEQ ID NO:75); wherein X is any amino acid; and wherein Z is selected from the group consisting of Cys, Asp, Glu, Asn, Gln, Lys, Arg, and absent.
 18. The organism of claim 17, wherein the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase comprises a polypeptide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to XZDXXXSXXZZXX (SEQ ID NO:77); wherein X is selected from the group consisting of Gly, Ala, Thr, Val, Leu, Ile, Phe, Tyr, Trp, Asp, Glu, Gln, Lys, Arg, and absent; and wherein Z is selected from the group consisting of Cys, Asp, Glu, Asn, Gln, Lys, and Arg.
 19. The organism of claim 17, wherein the exogenous terpenoid precursor is selected from the group consisting of mevalonate, dimethylallyl pyrophosphate, isopentenyl pyrophosphate, farnesyl pyrophosphate, geranyl pyrophosphate, and geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate, or a salt thereof.
 20. The organism of claim 17, thereby configured to produce one or more terpenoid compounds selected from the group consisting of a monoterpene, a sesquiterpene, and a diterpene.
 21. The organism of claim 17, wherein the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous enzyme and/or the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous endophytic fungal terpene synthase is provided as a plasmid vector.
 22. The organism of claim 17, wherein the exogenous enzyme is selected from the group consisting of acetyl-CoA acetyltransferase, HMG-CoA synthase, HMG-CoA reductase, mevalonate kinase, phosphomevalonate kinase, mevalonate diphosphate decarboxylase, isoprenyl diphosphate isomerase, farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase, and geranyl pyrophosphate synthase. 